Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/11/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 9/11/2024 11:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 11.sep.2024 om 13:49 schreef olcott:

On 9/10/2024 6:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:19 schreef olcott:

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!!!
>

>
It seems olcott also knows that HHH fails to reach the machine address 00002183, because it stop the simulation too soon.

>
No the issue is the you insist on remaining too stupid
to understand unreachable code.
>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   OutString("Can't possibly get here!");

>
Olcott keeps dreaming of infinite recursions, even when HHH aborts after two cycles. Two is not infinite.
>

 Yet in this same way Infinite_Recursion() itself
it not infinite when HHH aborts it in two cycles.

No, because Infinite_Recursion() when actually emulated by a non-aborting emulator will not halt.

 What makes Infinite_Recursion() non-halting even
when it stops being emulated is that it cannot
possibly reach past its own first instruction.
 

Because it doesn't stop when HHH stop emulating it.
You are just still confusing the behavior of a partial emulaiton of a machine with its behavior which is the FULL behavior (either direct exectuion or non-aborted emulation) of it.
You are just proving your stupidity, because you just don't understand what you are talking about, and you refuse to learn, thus TRAPPING you into pereptual ignorance and stupidity.