Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:No, you have proven that the *simulation* is different, not that the behaviour of the simulated function is different.On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:It is empirically proven according to the semantics of theOn 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:>On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
>On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:>
>On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:>
>When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude>
that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>
*Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply lying*
int main
{
DDD();
}
>
Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
You are the lying one.
>
If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct as a
halt decider for DDD really halts.
>
(b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
computation that itself is contained within.
No, we don't. There is no such prohibition.
>
Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing
Turing machine is not itself a finite string.
The definition of a Turing machine does not say that a Turing machine
is not a finite string. It is an abstract mathematical object without
a specification of its exact nature. It could be a set or a finite
string. Its exact nature is not relevant to the theory of computation,
which only cares about certain properties of Turing machines.
>Therefore It is not allowed to report on its own behavior.>
Anyway, that does not follow. The theory of Turing machines does not
prohibit anything.
>Another different TM can take the TM description of this>
machine and thus accurately report on its actual behavior.
If a Turing machine can take a description of a TM as its input
or as a part of its input it can also take its own description.
Every Turing machine can be given its own description as input
but a Turing machine may interprete it as something else.
>
except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
>
It is empirically proven that this changes their behavior
and the behavior of DDD.
>
You say a lot about things that are "empirically proven" and without exception they are never "proven" at all.
>
x86 machine code of DDD that DDD correctly emulated by HHH
has different behavior than DDD correctly emulated by HHH1.
_DDD()There is no infinite recursion.
[00002177] 55 push ebp
[00002178] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a] 6877210000 push 00002177
[0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d7
[00002184] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d pop ebp
[00002188] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
_main()
[00002197] 55 push ebp
[00002198] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000219a] 6877210000 push 00002177
[0000219f] e863f3ffff call 00001507
[000021a4] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a7] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021a9] 5d pop ebp
[000021aa] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0020) [000021aa]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00002197][001037fb][00000000] 55 push ebp
[00002198][001037fb][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000219a][001037f7][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000219f][001037f3][000021a4] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HHH1
New slave_stack at:10389f
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138a7
[00002177][00113897][0011389b] 55 push ebp
[00002178][00113897][0011389b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][00113893][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011388f][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:14e2c7
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:15e2cf
[00002177][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 55 push ebp
[00002178][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][0015e2bb][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2b7][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:198cef
[00002177][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 55 push ebp
[00002178][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][001a8ce3][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][001a8cdf][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
[00002184][00113897][0011389b] 83c404 add esp,+04DID is a misleading and unneeded complication. It is easy to eliminate DID:
[00002187][0011389b][000015bc] 5d pop ebp
[00002188][0011389f][0003a980] c3 ret
[000021a4][001037fb][00000000] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a7][001037fb][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021a9][001037ff][00000018] 5d pop ebp
[000021aa][00103803][00000000] c3 ret
Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.