Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 2024-09-11 22:35:07 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/11/2024 11:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:49 schreef olcott:

On 9/10/2024 6:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:19 schreef olcott:

On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
 

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.
 

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,
os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid

 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.

What does simulating it change about that?

 If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
 

PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR

 However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
behaviour.
 

 _DDD()
[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]
 A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
 It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
 

 It seems olcott also knows that HHH fails to reach the machine address 00002183, because it stop the simulation too soon.

 No the issue is the you insist on remaining too stupid
to understand unreachable code.
 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   OutString("Can't possibly get here!");

 Olcott keeps dreaming of infinite recursions, even when HHH aborts after two cycles. Two is not infinite.
 

 Yet in this same way Infinite_Recursion() itself
it not infinite when HHH aborts it in two cycles.
 What makes Infinite_Recursion() non-halting even
when it stops being emulated is that it cannot
possibly reach past its own first instruction.

That
  int main(void) {
    Infinite_Recursion();
    return 0;
  }
never returns makes Infinite_Recursion non-halting.
--
Mikko