Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis

On 6/7/2024 10:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 07 Jun 2024 10:05:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/7/2024 9:55 AM, Python wrote:

Le 07/06/2024 à 16:47, olcott a écrit :

Turing machines can take a finite string machine description of the
computation that contains themselves they cannot the computation that
actually contains themselves.

Does not parse.
Recursion can be encoded in a finite string.
 

The issue here is that I proved that DD correctly simulated by HH has
different behavior than the directly executed DD(DD) and everyone's
"rebuttal" to this proof is to simply ignore it.

When you actually try to form a rebuttal of the above you will see that
I am correct. So far everyone simply ignores the proof that I am correct
as their only rebuttal.

The rebuttal is that a simulation should behave the same as the real
thing.
 

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
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
Anyone claiming that HH should report on the behavior
of the directly executed DD(DD) is requiring a violation
of the above definition of correct simulation.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer