Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 10. Sep 2024, 09:48:43
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <vbp15b$2sedk$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-09-09 18:21:44 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/8/2024 9:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-07 13:56:02 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/7/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-06 11:42:48 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/6/2024 6:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-05 13:24:20 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
A halt decider is a Turing machine that computes
the mapping from its finite string input to the
behavior that this finite string specifies.
A halt decider needn't compute the full behaviour, only whether
that behaviour is finite or infinite.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Hence HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Nice to see that you don't disagree with what said.
Unvortunately I can't agree with what you say.
HHH terminates,
os DDD obviously terminates, too. No valid
DDD emulated by HHH never reaches it final halt state.
If that iis true it means that HHH called by DDD does not return
and therefore is not a ceicder.
The directly executed HHH is a decider.
If the called HHH behaves differently from the direcly executed HHH
then the DDD is not relevant to classic proofs of the impossibility
of a halting decider.
If you can't show encoding rules that permit the encoidng of the
behaviour of the directly executed DDD to HHH then HHH is not a
halting decider.
I SHOW THE ACTUAL EXECUTION TRACE AND EVERYONE DISAGREES WITH IT.
There are no encoding rules in the actual execution trace.
The x86 execution trace is encoded in the x86 language.
Why do you insist on lying about this?
Your question is ill-posed unless one believes a lie.
-- Mikko
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
