Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:34 schreef olcott:

On 9/5/2024 5:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.sep.2024 om 15:06 schreef olcott:

On 9/4/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.sep.2024 om 22:25 schreef olcott:

On 9/3/2024 2:01 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 03 Sep 2024 13:40:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/3/2024 9:42 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 02 Sep 2024 16:06:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

Which DDD does not.

DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its final halt state no matter
what HHH does.

But DDD halts, so it „specifies halting behaviour”.
HHH can’t simulate itself.
>

>
HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD
why do you insist on lying about this?
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

HHH *tries* to simulate itself, but it fails to reach the end of its simulation of the halting program.

>
The source code proves otherwise that you are not bright
enough to understand this code is no rebuttal at all.
>

Olcott's only rebuttal is a ad hominem attacks.
No evidence for another incorrect claim.
Even olcott agreed that HHH cannot reach the end of DDD and now he contradicts himself.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its own machine address 0000217f.
 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
then
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...
 WHAT SHOULD THE NEXT STEPS BE?
 

That has been told now several times. A correct simulation (as by HHH1, or the unmodified world class simulator) show that the next instruction is at 000015d2 (in HHH) and when HHH returns the next instruction in DDD is 0000217f, 00002182, 00002183 and DDD halts.
But, indeed, HHH fails to reach that part of the simulation, because it decided to stop the simulation too soon.
The problem is the code that tries to detect an infinite recursion. It fails to see that there are only two recursion for each HHH.
Olcott is still dreaming of a HHH that will not see this 'special condition'. He does not realise that by adding the code to recognize this 'special condition' and stop the simulation, the other HHH, that does not see this 'special condition', disappeared and remains only in his dreams. HHH, when simulating *itself* should now decide about the DDD that uses this new HHH that sees this 'special condition' and aborts.
*That code* is where the problem is, not the incomplete simulation itself.
In fact, if Olcott would have found a solution for the halting problem, then it would not be in the simulation, but in the detection of the 'special condition'. The correctness of the simulation is only relevant because it is used as input for the code to detect the 'special condition'. The proof that the halting problem cannot be solved with a computation implies that Olcott's detection of the 'special condition' cannot be correct.
It is probable that Olcott understands that it cannot be correct and therefore he hides the code for the recognition of this 'special condition'.
He probably knows that if he would publish this part of the decider, people would spot many errors in it immediately.
He has only shown some trivial examples as evidence that this detection of the 'special condition' is correct, such as Infinite_Loop and Infinite_Recursion, but, of course, a few trivial examples do not prove the correctness of this algorithm.
Therefore, he keeps pulling the attention away from the correctness of the detection of the 'special condition', to the correctness of the simulation.