Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Sep 2024, 14:10:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbk7ng$1u1js$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/8/2024 7:46 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:56:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/7/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-06 11:42:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>
A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping
from its finite string input to the behavior that this finite
string specifies.
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
Like Sipser said.
New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
>
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates, so DDD obviously terminates, too.
>
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
therefore is not a ceicder.
The directly executed HHH is a decider.
>
If the called HHH behaves differently from the direcly executed HHH
then the DDD is not relevant to classic proofs of the impossibility of
a halting decider.
If you can't show encoding rules that permit the encoidng of the
behaviour of the directly executed DDD to HHH then HHH is not a halting
decider.
I SHOW THE ACTUAL EXECUTION TRACE AND EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH IT.
Your implementation is buggy.
X86utm is based on a world class x86 emulator that
has had decades of development effort. It has been
trivial to verify to the execution traces that it
produces are correct for three years.
It really seems quite ridiculous to me that everyone
could continue to disagree with such easily verified
facts without malevolent motives.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
Is the dumbed down version of the haling problem pathological input:
int DD(int (*x)())
{
int Halt_Status = HH(x, x);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
I dumbed it down as much as possible and people still don't get
it. They seem to believe that they are free to disagree with the
x86 language.
It is like they believe that Trump actually won twice as many
votes as there are voters and cannot be convinced otherwise.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
