Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
On 9/13/2024 4:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:But that is irrelevent, as recursion is ALWAYS first most between a program and itself, and if HHH is claiming that DDD is "infinitely recursive" then that relationship of DDD recursing with itself would be evident to HHH1 too.Op 12.sep.2024 om 13:04 schreef olcott:You can't even get the most basic facts correctly.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:PATHOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
>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:New slave_stack at:1038c4 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation
>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.
>What does simulating it change about that?The directly executed HHH is a decider.>>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.
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
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.
There is no recursion what-so-ever between HHH1 and DDD.
_DDD()
[00002177] 55 push ebp
[00002178] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a] 6877210000 push 00002177
[0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d7
[00002184] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d pop ebp
[00002188] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
_main()
[00002197] 55 push ebp
[00002198] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000219a] 6877210000 push 00002177
[0000219f] e863f3ffff call 00001507
[000021a4] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a7] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021a9] 5d pop ebp
[000021aa] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0020) [000021aa]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00002197][001037fb][00000000] 55 push ebp
[00002198][001037fb][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000219a][001037f7][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000219f][001037f3][000021a4] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HHH1
New slave_stack at:10389f
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138a7
[00002177][00113897][0011389b] 55 push ebp
[00002178][00113897][0011389b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][00113893][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011388f][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:14e2c7
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:15e2cf
[00002177][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 55 push ebp
[00002178][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][0015e2bb][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2b7][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
New slave_stack at:198cef
[00002177][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 55 push ebp
[00002178][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[0000217a][001a8ce3][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][001a8cdf][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
[00002184][00113897][0011389b] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002187][0011389b][000015bc] 5d pop ebp
[00002188][0011389f][0003a980] c3 ret
[000021a4][001037fb][00000000] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a7][001037fb][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
[000021a9][001037ff][00000018] 5d pop ebp
[000021aa][00103803][00000000] c3 ret
Number of Instructions Executed(352831) == 5266 Pages
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.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.