Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Le 11/09/2024 à 02:21, olcott a écrit :

On 9/10/2024 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-09 18:19:26 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 9/8/2024 9:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 13:57:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/7/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-07 05:12:19 +0000, joes said:
>

Am Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:42:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:

On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes the mapping from
its finite string input to the behavior that this finite string
specifies.

>
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
>

New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation

>

Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
Hence  HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

>
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates,
os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid

>
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.

>
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return and
therefore is not a ceicder.

The directly executed HHH is a decider.

What does simulating it change about that?

>
If the simulation is incorrect it may change anything.
>

PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR

>
However, a correct simultation faithfully imitates the original
behaviour.
>

>
_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]
>
A correct emulation obeys the x86 machine code even
if this machine code catches the machine on fire.
>
It is impossible for an emulation of DDD by HHH to
reach machine address 00002183 AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

 A correct emulation of DDD does reach the machine address 0000217f and
a little later 00002183.

 *That is counter-factual and you cannot possibly show otherwise*
*Here are the verified facts*
*any attempt to show otherwise cannot possibly succeed*
 DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derived these steps:
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
 thus HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly
derive and other steps and I have proved that it does not
derive any other steps by the actual execution trace by a world
class x86 emulator libx86emu.

Oh, it's you... the one who's been doing all that talking on my behalf. I've had so many complaints—misquotes, wild claims. Really? I said that? Where did you even get that?"
"One book. I gave you one book, and somehow, you managed to turn it into an ego trip. And the lying? Commandment number nine ring any bells? Or was that just a suggestion to you?"
"Gabriel! Get over here. Take him to the ‘Special Section,’ you know, the one for people who thought they were speaking for me but were really just making stuff up. Yes, the debate club. Trust me, he’ll fit right in."
"Enjoy eternity surrounded by people who are all 100% convinced they’re right. You’ll love it. Oh, and feel free to preach in there. Not that anyone will ever listen.