Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:But HHH failed to meet the criteria, since it neither itself does the required complete simulation or correctly predicts what one will do, even if we broaden the conditions to allow another simulator to do the test.Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:>Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.>
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict the behaviour of the input.<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>
The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,No, it doesn't, and the case you poibnt to just doesn't happen without changing the input, which makes you a cheat.
thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.
Right, and the input is the DDD that calls THIS HHH, that is the one that aborts and returns, and not the non-input of a different DDD that calls that other HHH that doesn't abort.The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior
specified by their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn
business.
When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string inputBut the behavior that HHH computed isn't the behavior of the DDD that it was given (the DDD that calls this HHH that returns). If a decider on program bhavior was allowed to be considered correct if it gives an answer based on its own, possibly incorrect, assumptions about the program, then add such deciders would be correct, just because they said so.
of the x86 machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD
specifies HHH correctly predicts that DDD cannot possibly
stop running unless aborted.
The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect.Nope, you are incorrect because you are too ignorant to understand what a decider actually is.
The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a
halt decider out-of-hand without review. Because of this they
never saw the details of this behavior when a termination analyzer
correctly emulates an input that calls itself.
They never notices that there could possibly be a case whereBut it can't be, and you have accepted that fact by failing, MANY TIMES, to point out which instruction, that was ACTUALLY CORRECT EMULATED, differed in the simulation from the direct execution.
the behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its
own Machine description (x86 language) could differ from
the direct execution of this same machine.
And thus, the CALL HHH instuction must go into HHH and show what it actually does.But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86
instruction of N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and
in the correct order. 2 + 3 = 5 even if you don't believe in numbers.
*Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*LIES.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.