Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 07. Jun 2024, 17:14:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3v83r$39ri5$2@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/7/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 15:06:22 +0000, olcott said:
<Professor Sipser agreed>
   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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
>
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{
   if (H(x, x))
     HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
People here that are experts in the C programming language know that
*P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted*
yet lie about this or to try to get away with the strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
>
People here who have recently followed these discussions know that "P
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted"
does not confirm or contradict anything Linz and Strachey have said.
>
 When P correctly simulated by H meets this criteria
   If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input P
   until H correctly determines that its simulated P would never
   stop running unless aborted then
    H can abort its simulation of P and correctly report that P
   specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
Which since in THAT statement "Correctly Simulated" means a simulation that doesn't stop until it reaches a final state, it is clear that H never does a correct simulation, so the by H CAN'T be true (and H answer non-halting) and H can't even determine the behavior of any correct simulation, but only bases is INCORRECT decision on something not established by that sentence.

 My first paper in simulating halt deciders has all of the details
including showing the execution trace of P correctly simulated
by H proves a repeating state thus meets the above criteria:
  Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55          push ebp
[00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50          push eax       // push P
[00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51          push ecx       // push P
[00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff  call 00000966  // call H(P,P)
 [00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55          push ebp
[00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50          push eax       // push P
[00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51          push ecx       // push P
[00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff  call 00000966  // call H(P,P)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 *Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
 

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Jun 24 * Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly28olcott
4 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly5Fred. Zwarts
4 Jun 24 i`* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly4olcott
5 Jun 24 i `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly3Fred. Zwarts
5 Jun 24 i  `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly2olcott
5 Jun 24 i   `- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly1Fred. Zwarts
4 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry20olcott
4 Jun 24 i`* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry19Fred. Zwarts
5 Jun 24 i `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry18Mikko
5 Jun 24 i  `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry17olcott
6 Jun 24 i   `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry16Mikko
6 Jun 24 i    `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry15olcott
6 Jun 24 i     +* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry13Mikko
6 Jun 24 i     i`* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry12olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i +- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry1Richard Damon
7 Jun 24 i     i `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry10Mikko
7 Jun 24 i     i  `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry9olcott
7 Jun 24 i     i   +- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 i     i   `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry7Mikko
8 Jun 24 i     i    `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry6olcott
8 Jun 24 i     i     +- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 i     i     `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry4Mikko
9 Jun 24 i     i      `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry3olcott
9 Jun 24 i     i       `* Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry2Mikko
9 Jun 24 i     i        `- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry1olcott
7 Jun 24 i     `- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry1Richard Damon
5 Jun 24 +- Re: Proof that Olcott is a liar1immibis
5 Jun 24 `- Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal