Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 11.sep.2024 om 02:21 schreef olcott:

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.
>

It is a verified fact the the finite string describes a halting program according to the semantics of the x86 language. The direct execution, the simulation by the unmodified world class simulator and even by HHH1 show that the instructions at 0000217f, 00002182, 00002183 and the program halt are reachable.
The semantics of the x86 language allow only one behaviour for this finite string.
The verified fact is that olcott's modified simulator HHH stops the simulation before it reaches these reachable instructions.
It is a verified fact that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
With such overwhelming proofs, olcott should stop claiming that it is counter-factual.
That olcott's  dream of the simulation with a non-aborting HHH starts with the same four instructions, does not prove that the full behaviour is also the same. That HHH's twin brother does not halt does not prove that HHH itself does not halt.