Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point?

On 6/8/2024 1:12 PM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 08 Jun 2024 12:10:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/8/2024 11:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 10:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/8/24 10:20 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/8/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

 

By your code, the simulator will "Debug Step" those instructions.
>

The underlying details of one HH are irrelevant when I reference an
infinite set:\

What are all the other HH?
 

*Ben already agreed that the criteria that*
*Professor Sipser agreed to have been met*
>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's
  > trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
  > *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.

 >

What do I care what Ben thinks (sorry).
And Sipser's "criterion" is not at all disputed.
>

It is not Sipser's criteria it is MY criteria that I
spent two years carefully composing that professor Sipser
reviewed and approved.

Yes, P(P) won't halt if the code of H won't abort it.
>

thus meeting the Sipser approved criteria.
>

But if the code of H does abort it, it will halt.
>

D is accountable for the behavior of its actual input and not freaking
accountable for any damn thing else in the whole freaking universe.

 

Halt deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL
BEHAVIOR THAT THIS INPUT SPECIFIES.
This input specifies the behavior of DD correctly simulated by HH.

 

That everyone wants to avoid looking at my conclusive proof that DD
correctly simulated by HH has provably different behavior than the
direct executed DD(DD) is dishonest.

 >

Dishonest is claiming a simulator gets to a different conclusion.
 

I conclusively prove otherwise and everyone:
(a) Ignores this proof
(b) Fails to understand this proof
(c) Lies about the results of this proof.
Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
have been met:
<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 words10/13/2022>
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
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.
The above is the complete proof that DD correctly simulated
by any HH that can possibly exist never stops running without
having its simulation aborted by HH (or crashing for OOM error).
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer