Re: Defining a correct halt decider

On 9/7/24 10:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 9/7/2024 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.sep.2024 om 13:41 schreef olcott:

On 9/6/2024 6:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-05 13:39:14 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-03 13:17:56 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 9/3/2024 3:44 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-09-02 16:06:11 +0000, olcott said:
>

A correct halt decider is a Turing machine T with one accept state and one reject state such that:
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y eventually halts, the execution of T eventually ends up in the accept state and then stops.
>
If T is executed with initial tape contents equal to an encoding of Turing machine X and its initial tape contents Y, and execution of a real machine X with initial tape contents Y does not eventually halt, the execution of T eventually ends up in the reject state and then stops.

>
Your "definition" fails to specify "encoding". There is no standard
encoding of Turing machines and tape contents.

>
That is why I made the isomorphic x86utm system.
By failing to have such a concrete system all kinds
of false assumptions cannot be refuted.

>
If it were isnomorphic the same false assumtipns would apply to both.

>
They do yet I cannot provide every single details of
the source-code of the Turing machine because these
details would be too overwhelming.
>
So instead every author makes a false assumption that
is simply believed to be true with no sufficient basis
to show that it isn't true.
>
Once I prove my point as the x86 level I show how the
same thing applies to the Peter Linz proof.

>
Your recent presentations are so far from Linz' proof that they
look totally unrelated.
>

>
I must begin where people are so far no one even understands
the concept of recursive emulation.
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
Show the details of how DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its own machine address 0000217f.
>
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)
then
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a calls HHH(DDD)...
>
WHAT SHOULD THE NEXT STEPS BE?
>

>
That has been told now several times. A correct simulation (as by HHH1, or the unmodified world class simulator)

 What comes next in the above sequence?
 Changing the question to answer a different question
is the despicable lie of the strawman deception.
 

The problem is you aren't asking a sensible question, but one basd on a false premise.
The fact that you said it went fro 0000217e "Call HHH(DDD)" to 00002172 is just a false statement if HHH is a correct emulator.
Thus, *YOU* are the one that is show to be the idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about.
Sorry, that is just the facts, and you have proved that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant patholgocal lying idiot that doesn't understand what he is talking about and is incapbable of learning about it.
That is what you have made as your reputation.