Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider

On 9/13/24 5:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 12.sep.2024 om 13:04 schreef olcott:

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.
>

 That fact is not ignored. But there are similarities and differences between these two cases. The similarities are that there are recursion, but neither in the first case, nor in the second case there are *infinite* recursions.
The difference is that HHH1 is able to reach the end of the simulation, but HHH fails to reach the end, because it decides to stop the simulation too soon. here is a bug in the pattern recognition logic of HHH, which makes it stop the simulation before it has reached the end of the program.
The claim that differences are ignored, has no evidence. What olcott ignores is the bug in the 'recognition for infinite recursion' in HHH.
HHH produces false negatives on the decision whether a program halts. This has been proven with:
         int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }
 where HHH halts but decides it does not halt.

The bug isn't in the "recognition" of the pattern, as Olcott has made it very clear that the pattern that HHH sees is the pattern he intends to be detecting, the bug is in the definitoin of the pattern itself.
Olcott started with the correct pattern, of a recursive loop that started at one point, and got back to the exact same point, one call later, with no conditional instructions in the loop, but then modified it to exclude the looking at the code of the decider that is doing the operation.
The problem can sort of be explained by the thinking that doing a correct emulation until you can determine that if you kept on doing it something would be true, even though that action depends on what you decide, that you actions are "unconditional".
He thinks that "taking into account" the pathological relationship means that the decider is allowed to assume that the other instance does something different than what it does.