Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 9/8/2024 9:44 AM, Mikko wrote:It is your emulator so you need to show what needs be shown.On 2024-09-08 13:58:32 +0000, olcott said:_DDD()
On 9/8/2024 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:We know except the only "people" that do so is you.On 2024-09-07 14:00:19 +0000, olcott said:<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
On 9/7/2024 5:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:That is right. The error only occurs when HHH no longer emulates theOp 06.sep.2024 om 13:31 schreef olcott:You must be a brain dead moron.On 9/6/2024 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:What is olcott's problem with English?Op 05.sep.2024 om 15:48 schreef olcott:The way it is encoded now there are only two recursions.HHH MUST ABORT AFTER SOME FIXED NUMBER OF RECURSIVE EMULATIONSAnd the outer one, when aborting after two cycles , misses the behaviour of the inner one in the next cycle, where the inner one would see the 'special condition', abort, return to DDD, which would halt as well.
AND THE OUTERMOST HHH ALWAYS SEE ONE MORE THAN THE NEXT INNER ONE.
That HHH misses the last part of the behaviour of the program, does not change the fact that this is the behaviour that was coded in the program
If we have an infinite chain of people each waiting forThe infinite chain exists only in your dream. In fact there are only two recursions, so never more that a chain of three HHH in the simulation.
the next one down the line to do something then that thing
is never done.
HHH is incorrect in assuming the there is an infinite chain, but this incorrect assumption makes that it aborts and halts. This applies both to the simulating and the simulated HHH.
If we encode it as you suggest the outermost directly
executed HHH would wait for the first emulated HHH which
would wait for the second which would wait for third
on and on...
If one way is incorrect, he thinks that it suggests that another way must be correct.
I never suggested to change HHH, because there is *no* correct way to do it. Every HHH that simulates itself is incorrect. No matter what clever code it includes.
As long as HHH emulates the sequence of instructions
it was provided then HHH is correct even if it catches
your computer on fire.
sequence of instructions it was provided.
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
The above refers to determining that *its input D*
"specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations"
When people change this to a *non-input D* they are
trying to get away with deception.
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
Try to show all of the details of how DDD emulated
by HHH ever reaches machine address 00002183
Sequences of machine addressed when DDD is emulated by HHHHere, too, it is your problem to show what needs be shown.
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
which calls an emulated HHH(DDD).
What are the next instructions of DDD emulated by the emulated HHH ?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.