Re: Sequence of sequence, selection and iteration matters

Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:46 schreef olcott:

On 7/9/2024 9:38 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 09.jul.2024 om 16:19 schreef olcott:

On 7/9/2024 1:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-08 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:

<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
>
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>

Whether a partial simulation of DDD simulates the return depends
on the simulator.

>
That is false proving that you have insufficient knowledge.

>
It is true. There are partial simulators that do simulate D(I) to its termination (if it terminates) and there are simulators that don't.
That you cannot imagine something does not mean it can't exist.
>

>
No pure function x86 emulator HHH can possibly emulate DDD
to its termination.

>
Indeed, no such HHH exists. This proves that HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

 "Correctly" means must do whatever the x86 code specifies.

And since the x86 code never specifies an abort, it is incorrect to abort halfway a simulation that would halt. We know it would halt, because other simulators show that it halts when HHH is correctly simulated.
If you want to deny this truth, point to the specification of the x86 language where it says that a program must be aborted. It is irrational to defend an unneeded abort with a reference to the x86 specifications.

You are in psychological denial causing you to be irrational.

Illogical and irrelevant remarks ignored. I know olcott has problems to recognize the truth, so I do not feel offended.

 

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
*When DDD is correctly emulated by any pure function*
*HHH x86 emulator that can possibly exist* which calls
an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the
emulated DDD is aborted.

>

And the fact *that* it aborts, makes the simulation incorrect (as Sipser would agree with), because the X86 code does not specify an abort at that point. Therefore, the only conclusion must be: No such HHH exists.
We are discussing an empty set of HHH,
because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. HHH will always abort too soon, when the simulated HHH has only one cycle to go.
It is easier to see with the following program, where the unneeded complexity of DDD is eliminated:
        int main()
        {
          return HHH(main);
        }
The problem that HHH aborts after two cycles makes that it probably also aborts
void Finite_Recursion (int N) {
   if (N > 0) Finite_Recursion (N - 1);
}
after two cycles of recursion.