Re: DD correctly simulated by HH --- never stops running without aborting its simulation

On 6/7/24 9:57 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/7/2024 1:04 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-06 18:49:32 +0000, Rafael Doofenschmirtz said:
>

On 6/06/24 20:35, olcott wrote:

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
  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>
>
*Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever*
*stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH*
>
_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH
>

>
after HH returns 0, the program counter proceeds to address 00001e23, and then, a few instructions later DD also returns

>

 Because DD correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
simulation until HH aborts its simulation of DD

And the problem is that your definition of "The input correect simulated by the decider" is a meaningless phrase with respect to deciding the halting behavior of the machine described by the input.

 *HH never returns anything to any simulated DD AND*

Only to anythibng simulated by itself, and that is part of the problem with your definition of simulated by the decider.

 If simulating halt decider HH correctly simulates its input DD
until HH correctly determines that its simulated DD would never
stop running unless aborted then

But the way you use that is an meaningless concept, as you change the input as you imagine HH being something else, and thus you are NOT looking at the behavior of a machine described by the input but some ill-defined behavior of a "template" which does things that makes it NOT the equivalent of a Turing Machine (and thus shows you are NOT working on the Linz or Sipser proof).

 HH can abort its simulation of DD and correctly report that DD
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.

But it did its analysis on something that wasn't the actual input given to it as seen as the description of a full program as halting is defined for.
Thus, either you are just admitting that you are not working on the halting problem, or that you just don't understand the meaning of terms like what a "program" is considered to be, or you are just a pathologocal liar.

 That is what HH does.
   

If HH ever returns. The challenge does not specify anything about
HH other than it simulates the same DD. In particular, the last
shown line may cause HH to simulate itself, depending on how HH
interpretes it.
>