Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 08. Jun 2024, 20:49:17
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v42cjt$2p81p$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
*This has been corrected so that it can be verified that*
*the execution trace matches the x86 source-code of DD*
(two versions of my text files were out-of-sync)
Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
have been met:
<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 words10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
 > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
 > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
 > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax      ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH
A {correct simulation} means that each instruction of the
above x86 machine language of DD is correctly simulated
by HH and simulated in the correct order.
In other words the first seven steps of DD correctly simulated
by HH call HH(DD,DD) to repeat these first seven steps. HH then
simulates itself simulating DD until this second instance of DD
calls another HH(DD,DD) to repeat these first seven steps again.
New slave_stack at:10306d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp        ; begin DD
[00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
[00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
New slave_stack at:14da95
[00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp         ; begin DD
[00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
[00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
Local Halt Decider: Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
The above is the complete proof that DD correctly simulated
by any HH that can possibly exist never stops running without
having its simulation aborted by HH (or crashing for OOM error).

Date Sujet#  Auteur
8 Jun 24 * Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)61olcott
8 Jun 24 +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
8 Jun 24 i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
8 Jun 24 +- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24 `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)57Fred. Zwarts
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
9 Jun 24  +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
9 Jun 24  i`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24  `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)52olcott
10 Jun 24   +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)48Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i+* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3olcott
10 Jun 24   ii+- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   ii`- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)44olcott
10 Jun 24   i +* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)42Fred. Zwarts
10 Jun 24   i i`* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)41olcott
11 Jun 24   i i `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)40Fred. Zwarts
11 Jun 24   i i  `* D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten39olcott
12 Jun 24   i i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten38Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten37olcott
12 Jun 24   i i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten36Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten35olcott
12 Jun 24   i i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten34Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten33olcott
12 Jun 24   i i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten32Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten31olcott
13 Jun 24   i i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten30Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten29olcott
13 Jun 24   i i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten28Fred. Zwarts
13 Jun 24   i i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten27olcott
14 Jun 24   i i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten26Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten25olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten24Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten23olcott
14 Jun 24   i i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten22Fred. Zwarts
14 Jun 24   i i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten21olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten20Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten19olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                       +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten17Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten16olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                         +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten14Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten13olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                           +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
15 Jun 24   i i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten11Fred. Zwarts
15 Jun 24   i i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten10olcott
15 Jun 24   i i                             +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten8Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 24   i i                              `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten7olcott
16 Jun 24   i i                               +- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Richard Damon
16 Jun 24   i i                               `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten5Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten4olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 24   i i                                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten2olcott
17 Jun 24   i i                                   `- Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten1Fred. Zwarts
12 Jun 24   i `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD)1Richard Damon
10 Jun 24   `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)3Richard Damon
10 Jun 24    `* Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)2olcott
11 Jun 24     `- Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1)1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal