Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/2/24 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/2/2024 12:52 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.sep.2024 om 18:38 schreef olcott:

A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes
the mapping from its finite string input to the
behavior that this finite string specifies.
>
If the finite string machine string machine
description specifies that it cannot possibly
reach its own final halt state then this machine
description specifies non-halting behavior.
>
A halt decider never ever computes the mapping
for the computation that itself is contained within.
>
Unless there is a pathological relationship between
the halt decider H and its input D the direct execution
of this input D will always have identical behavior to
D correctly simulated by simulating halt decider H.
>
*Simulating Termination Analyzer H Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>
A correct emulation of DDD by HHH only requires that HHH
emulate the instructions of DDD** including when DDD calls
HHH in recursive emulation such that HHH emulates itself
emulating DDD.

>
Indeed, it should simulate *itself* and not a hypothetical other HHH with different behaviour.

 It is emulating the exact same freaking machine code
that the x86utm operating system is emulating.
 

And either IGNORES it or LIES, as it uses the "rule" of No condition instruction in the emulation of DDD, when there ARE conditional instructions in the code of the PROGRAM DDD, namely those of the function HHH that it calls.

If HHH includes code to see a 'special condition' and aborts and halts, then it should also simulate the HHH that includes this same code and

  DDD has itself and the emulated HHH stuck in recursive emulation.
 IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?
IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?
IS THE CONCEPT OF UNREACHABLE CODE OVER YOUR HEAD?

But the code IS reachable, since your defined HHH does abort and return, since that is what you says it does. IT is just that no HHH can reach that point in its partial emulation of the DDD that calls it.

 void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   printf("Fred is too dumb to know this code is never reached!\n");
}
 

Which isn't the code being trace, proving your. just a pathological liar.