Re: V5 --- Professor Sipser --- Execution trace of simulating termination analyzer HHH on DDD input

On 8/24/2024 3:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 23.aug.2024 om 23:40 schreef olcott:

On 8/23/2024 2:24 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 22 Aug 2024 12:42:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>

Only IF it will in fact keep repeating, which is not the case.

>
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*
Only IF it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating, *which is the case*

It is the case only if you still cheat with the Root variable, which makes that HHH processes a non-input, when it is requested to predict the behaviour of the input.

<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>
The fact is that it *WOULD* in fact keep repeating,
thus *IT DOES* get the correct answer.

The input given to HHH in fact halts, as is seen in the direct execution and in the correct simulation by HHH1.

The fact is that all deciders only report on the behavior
specified by their inputs and non-inputs are non-of-their-damn
business.
When HHH computes the mapping from its finite string input
of the x86 machine code of DDD to the the behavior that DDD
specifies HHH correctly predicts that DDD cannot possibly
stop running unless aborted.
The reason that this seem so strange is not that I am incorrect.
The reason is that everyone rejected simulation as a basis for a
halt decider out-of-hand without review. Because of this they
never saw the details of this behavior when a termination analyzer
correctly emulates an input that calls itself.
They never notices that there could possibly be a case where
the behavior of the emulation of the machine specified by its
own Machine description (x86 language) could differ from
the direct execution of this same machine.

But HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.

The ONLY measure of simulated correctly is that each x86
instruction of N instructions of DDD is emulated correctly and
in the correct order. 2 + 3 = 5 even if you don't believe in numbers.
*Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer