Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 12. Sep 2024, 09:54:50
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <vbu6oa$59vd$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-09-11 11:41:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/11/2024 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-11 00:21:36 +0000, olcott said:
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*
A halt decider is required to predict about the actual execution,
not a couterfactual assumption.
False assumption.
It is not an assumption.
"In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program
and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
to run forever." --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problemThat definition obviously contains what I said above.
-- Mikko
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
