Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 12. Sep 2024, 12:04:57
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbuhsp$7g4h$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/12/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
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_problem
That definition obviously contains what I said above.
It is ridiculously stupid to simply ignore the verified
fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation and
DDD DOES NOT call HHH1(DDD) in recursive emulation.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
