Sujet : Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logicDate : 07. Jun 2024, 17:14:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v3v83r$39ri5$2@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/7/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/7/2024 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-06-06 15:06:22 +0000, olcott said:
<Professor Sipser agreed>
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.
</Professor Sipser agreed>
>
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
People here that are experts in the C programming language know that
*P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted*
yet lie about this or to try to get away with the strawman deception
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
>
People here who have recently followed these discussions know that "P
correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless aborted"
does not confirm or contradict anything Linz and Strachey have said.
>
When P correctly simulated by H meets this criteria
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input P
until H correctly determines that its simulated P would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of P and correctly report that P
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
Which since in THAT statement "Correctly Simulated" means a simulation that doesn't stop until it reaches a final state, it is clear that H never does a correct simulation, so the by H CAN'T be true (and H answer non-halting) and H can't even determine the behavior of any correct simulation, but only bases is INCORRECT decision on something not established by that sentence.
My first paper in simulating halt deciders has all of the details
including showing the execution trace of P correctly simulated
by H proves a repeating state thus meets the above criteria:
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
[00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
*Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
4 Jun 24 | Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 28 | | olcott |
4 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 5 | | Fred. Zwarts |
4 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 4 | | olcott |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 3 | | Fred. Zwarts |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 2 | | olcott |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 1 | | Fred. Zwarts |
4 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 20 | | olcott |
4 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 19 | | Fred. Zwarts |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 18 | | Mikko |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 17 | | olcott |
6 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 16 | | Mikko |
6 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 15 | | olcott |
6 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 13 | | Mikko |
6 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 12 | | olcott |
7 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 1 | | Richard Damon |
7 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 10 | | Mikko |
7 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 9 | | olcott |
7 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 1 | | Richard Damon |
8 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 7 | | Mikko |
8 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 6 | | olcott |
8 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 1 | | Richard Damon |
9 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 4 | | Mikko |
9 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 3 | | olcott |
9 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 2 | | Mikko |
9 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 1 | | olcott |
7 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly -- Mike Terry | 1 | | Richard Damon |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that Olcott is a liar | 1 | | immibis |
5 Jun 24 | Re: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD correctly | 1 | | Richard Damon |