Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

Op 12.sep.2024 om 00:35 schreef olcott:

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.

Olcott keeps dreaming of infinite recursions, when in fact there are only two recursions.
Olcott is very good in twisting the meaning of words. When a simulation stops halfway a halting program, it does not make sense to present a non-halting program.
HHH is more like
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
   printf ("Olcott thinks this is never printed.\n");
}

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

Further stopping the simulation halfway the halting program does not prove that the remainder of the code is not reachable.
The remainder of the code of HHH and DDD is reachable, as proven by the direct execution, by the unmodified world class  simulator and even by HHH1.
Olcott thinks that if the simulation of Finite_Recursion is stopped after two recursions it proves that the next recursion is unreachable and therefore Finite_Recursion does not halt.
When will he finally realise that, although the return from HHH to DDD is reachable, HHH does not reach it because it stops too soon?
The fact that HHH does not reach the end, proves that the decision to stop was incorrect, not that the remainder is unreachable.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
The algorithm to decides that there is an infinite recursion, has been proven to have false positives. Just as in:
        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
where HHH halts but decides that it detected an infinite recursion.