Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 04. Sep 2024, 10:38:22
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vb99qf$3plip$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 03.sep.2024 om 22:25 schreef olcott:
On 9/3/2024 2:01 PM, joes wrote:
Am Tue, 03 Sep 2024 13:40:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/3/2024 9:42 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:06:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping from
its finite string input to the behavior that this finite string
specifies.
If the finite string machine string machine description specifies
that it cannot possibly reach its own final halt state then this
machine description specifies non-halting behavior.
Which DDD does not.
DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state no matter
what HHH does.
But DDD halts, so it „specifies halting behaviour”.
HHH can’t simulate itself.
>
HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
why do you insist on lying about this?
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
HHH *tries* to simulate itself, but it fails to reach the end of its simulation of the halting program.
This is a failure of the simulator, which Olcott uses to claim that the input has changed its behaviour. But it is clear that the behaviour of the program described by the finite string is completely fixed by the semantics of the x86 language and does not change by incorrect simulations.
…