Sujet : Re: No decider is accountable for the computation that itself is contained within
De : F.Zwarts (at) *nospam* HetNet.nl (Fred. Zwarts)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 31. Jul 2024, 09:20:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8cs3o$1gbu7$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Op 30.jul.2024 om 22:08 schreef olcott:
On 7/30/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 30.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:
On 7/30/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 15:32:44 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/29/2024 3:17 PM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:32:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/28/2024 3:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-27 14:21:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 7/27/2024 2:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-07-26 16:28:43 +0000, olcott said:
>
Halt deciders are not allowed to report on the behavior of the actual
computation that they themselves are contained within. They are only
allowed to compute the mapping from input finite strings.
What if the input is the same as the containing computation?
It always is except in the case where the decider is reporting on the TM
description that itself is contained within.
>
I don't understand. "The input is not the same as the containing
computation when deciding on the description of the containing
computation"?
>
>
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
}
>
The behavior of the correct emulation of the x86 machine
language input DDD to a emulating halt decider HHH is not
the same as behavior of the direct execution of DDD when
the x86 machine language of DDD is correctly emulated
by emulating halt decider HHH that calls HHH(DDD) (itself).
>
>
In fact, HHH cannot possibly simulate *itself* correctly.
I have proven that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
according to the semantics that the x86 machine code specifies.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.
HHH is violating the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of its simulation.
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end of a halting program.
Olcott's own claim that the simulated HHH does not reach its end confirms it. The trace he has shown also proves that HHH cannot reach the end of its own simulation. So, his own claims prove that it is true that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself up to the end, which makes the simulation incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within
Re: No decider is ever accountable for the behavior of the computation that itself is contained within (unless that is its input)
