Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- Linz

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem --- Linz
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 31. May 2025, 19:26:26
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <c0d362e40422ff0b7890b304eb8e7ba1ebb5ba36@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/31/25 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/31/2025 7:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/31/25 2:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/30/2025 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/30/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
On 5/30/2025 3:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-05-29 18:10:39 +0000, olcott said:
>
On 5/29/2025 12:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
🧠 Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem
>
In the classical framework of computation theory (Turing machines),
simulation is not equivalent to execution, though they can approximate one
another.
>
To the best of my knowledge a simulated input
always has the exact same behavior as the directly
executed input unless this simulated input calls
its own simulator.
>
The simulation of the behaviour should be equivalent to the real
behaviour.
>
That is the same as saying a function with infinite
recursion must have the same behavior as a function
without infinite recursion.
>
Nope. Where does it say that?
>
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted.   // otherwise infinite recursion
DDD emulated by HHH1 need not be aborted.
>
>
No, nether HHH or HHH1 can correctly emulate this input, as it is incomplete, andt eh call HHH is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate in this input, as its target is not in the input, so any action that looks elsewhere for it is just not emulating THIS INPUT.
>
Sorry, your acknoldegement that you DDD just isn't a program means that its representation is NOT correctly emulatable.
>
Fix that issue by including in the input the code of the HHH that calling it, and we find that HHH just doesn't correctly emulate it, as it has been defined, in halt7.c, to chose to abort at a spot where the program does not stop.
>
Of course, in your mind HHH isn't a program either, as you refuse to accept that it must be a single program. Note, an infinite set of programs is not A program.
>
>
Thus, you have admitted that your whole system of logic is based on using incorrect definitions and lies.
>
Your problem is you don't understand that the only things you can correctly simulate are PROGRAMS, which mean they include all of their code, which is also expressed in the input given to the simulator.
>
>
Whether it actually is depends on the quality of the
simulator. There is no exception for the case when the simulator
is called. If the behaviour in the simulation is different from
a real execution then the simulation is wrong.
>
>
A function that calls its own simulator specifies different
behavior than a function that does not call its own simulator.
>
No it doesn't, as we can only be talking about programs, and programs don't know who "their simulator" is, only what simulator they were built to use.
>
>
One of the advantages of Turing machines is that there is no possibility
to call anything so the effect of calling the simulator need not be
considered.
>
>
The same issue occurs in the Linz proof, it is merely more
difficult to see. The correctly simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ cannot
possibly reach its own simulated final halt state ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩
>
What "Issue"? Your problme is you don't understand what you are taling about.
>
>
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
Why did the copy of H change to being called "embedded_H"?
>
>
I am using cleaner notational conventions.
>
How is using two names for the same thing cleaner?
>
>
>
(a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
(e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
(g) goto (d) with one more level of simulation
>
>
Which then gets stop when the embedded_H invoked at the first invocation of (b) doing step (c) decides to abort its emulation.
>
>
I have it emulate one more level before stopping.
It would stop at (e).
>
Rigth, so you go (a) (b) (c) (e) (h) return to H^.qn (i) H^ Halts
>
Thus showing the input is non-halting.
>
 *EVERYONE ALWAYS GETS THIS WRONG*
How, since it is. Or are you just showing you think lying is ok

 int main()
{
   DDD(); // The HHH that DDD calls is not supposed to
}        // report on the behavior of its caller, nitwit
 Likewise embedded_H is not supposed to report on the
behavior of the computation that itself is embedded within.
 
Right, it reports on the behavior of the computation that is represented to it, even if that just happens to be its caller.
You are just showing that you don't understand the basic meaning of the terms you are using, and that you recklessly refuse to learn them.
It seems your idea of "logic" isn't based on actual logic, but on your ability to lie.
Sorry, but that *IS* what you are telling the world by your actions.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 May 25 * Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem238olcott
30 May 25 +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
30 May 25 `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem236Mikko
30 May 25  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem235olcott
31 May 25   +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem175Richard Damon
31 May 25   i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem174olcott
31 May 25   i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem168dbush
31 May 25   i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem167olcott
31 May 25   i i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem165dbush
31 May 25   i i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem164olcott
31 May 25   i i i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem163dbush
31 May 25   i i i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem162Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem161olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem159Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem158olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem157Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem156olcott
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1dbush
1 Jun 25   i i i    i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem153Mike Terry
1 Jun 25   i i i    i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem13olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem9Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem8olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Fred. Zwarts
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2Mike Terry
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    i     `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1olcott
2 Jun 25   i i i    i    +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem137Mike Terry
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii   `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1André G. Isaak
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii+- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Fred. Zwarts
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3Richard Damon
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    ii  `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem126dbush
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem117Mike Terry
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i i+* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem114wij
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem113olcott
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem111Mikko
4 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem110olcott
6 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem109Mikko
6 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem108olcott
7 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem107Mikko
7 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem106olcott
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii       +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem104Mikko
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem103olcott
8 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii         +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii         `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem101Mikko
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii          `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem100olcott
10 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii           +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii           `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem98Mikko
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii            `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem97olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem49wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem48olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem47wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem46olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem45wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem44olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem43wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem42olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem41wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem40olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem38wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem37olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem35wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem34olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem33wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem32olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem31wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i    `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem30olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i     `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem29wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i      +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i      `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem27olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i       `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem26wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i        `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem25olcott
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i         `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem24wij
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i          `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem23olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem21wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem20olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem19wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem18olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem10wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem9olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i +* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem3wij
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   i  `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem4olcott
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           i   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem7joes
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i i           `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             i         `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
11 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             +- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
12 Jun 25   i i i    i    i ii             `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem46Mikko
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i i`* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem2olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem8olcott
3 Jun 25   i i i    i    `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Mikko
1 Jun 25   i i i    `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
31 May 25   i i `- Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem1Richard Damon
31 May 25   i `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem5Richard Damon
1 Jun 25   `* Re: Simulation vs. Execution in the Halting Problem59Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal