Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

Op 06.mei.2025 om 20:40 schreef olcott:

On 5/6/2025 10:53 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 10:29:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-05 17:37:20 +0000, olcott said:

>

The above example is category error because it asks HHH(DD) to report
on the direct execution of DD() and the input to HHH specifies a
different sequence of steps.

>
No, it does not. The input is DD specifides exactly the same sequence
of steps as DD. HHH just answers about a different sequence of steps
instead of the the seqeunce specified by its input.

As agreed to below:
>

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until
      H correctly determines that its simulated D *would never stop
      running unless aborted* then
>
*input D* is the actual input *would never stop running unless aborted*
is the hypothetical H/D pair where H does not abort.

 

H should simulate its actual input D that calls the aborting H, not a
hypothetical version of D that calls a pure simulator.
>

 *would never stop running unless aborted*
refers to the same HHH that DD calls yet
this hypothetical HHH does not abort.

A self-contradicting sentence, which must be rejected. If it is the same HHH, then it does abort. If it does not abort, then it is not the same HHH. Is that already above your head?

 

You cannot possibly show the exact execution trace where DD is correctly
emulated by HHH and this emulated DD reaches past its own machine
address [0000213c].

 

Duh, no simulator can simulate itself correctly. But HHH1 can simulate
DD/HHH.
>

 HHH does simulate itself correctly yet must create
a separate process context for each recursive emulation.
Each process context has its own stack and set of
virtual registers.