Sujet : Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 11. Sep 2024, 13:36:00
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbrvb0$3im2p$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 9/10/2024 6:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:55 schreef olcott:
On 9/9/2024 6:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 08.sep.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:
On 9/8/2024 5:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 07.sep.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
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:
>
The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD
must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
recursive emulation.
Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is waiting for
its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.
But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?
When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the next HHH
which is waiting for the next HHH...
we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
Except for the outermost one.
>
>
When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>
>
Dreaming again of a HHH that does not abort.
>
In other words you have no idea what a hypothesis is?
>
I do, but olcott thinks a dream is sufficient to prove a hypothesis.
>
>
The outermost HHH can either abort it emulation of DDD
or not and either way DDD cannot possibly reach its final
halt state of its "return" instruction and halt.
>
Exactly, so either way the simulation fails to reach the end.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
>
Thus must be aborted and is necessarily correct to report non-halting.
>
>
Claim without evidence.
_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]
DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derives these steps:
00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
The last of these steps calld HHH(DDD)
HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly derive
any other steps and I have proved this by the actual execution trace
by a world class x86 emulator libx86emu.
https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf
Here is the complete sourcecode of HHH and DDD
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.cThe only only possible rebuttals to this are nonsense
gibberish or baseless claims.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
