XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 6/29/2024 3:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 6/29/24 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 6/29/2024 3:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 6/29/24 3:25 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 6/29/2024 2:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 6/29/24 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 6/29/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 6/29/24 2:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>    
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> But that only applies if H determines a CORRECT SIMULATION per HIS   
   >>> definition does not halt   
   >>> .   
   >>> That means the DIRECT EXECUTION of the program represented by the   
   >>> input does not halt, since that is the DEFINITION of the results of a   
   >>> correct simuation.   
   >>>   
   >>> That also requires that the simulation does not stop until it reaches   
   >>> a final state. You H neither does that nor correctly determines that   
   >>> (since it does halt) thus you can never use the second paragraph to   
   >>> be allowed to abort, even though you do anyway, which is why you get   
   >>> the wrong answer.   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> *N steps of correct simulation are specified*   
   >>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>>>>>> H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Which does not determine the ACTUAL behavor   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> _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]   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That you already know that it does prove that DDD correctly   
   >>>>>> emulated by HHH would never stop running unless aborted   
   >>>>>> or out-of-memory error   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> *proves that you are trying to get away with a bald-faced lie*   
   >>>>>> I really hope that you repent before it is too late.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Nope, just shows your stupidity, as the above code has NO defined   
   >>>>> behavior as it accesses code that is not defined by it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> *Its behavior is completely defined by*   
   >>>> (a) The finite string x86 machine code that includes   
   >>>>      the recursive emulation call from DDD to HHH(DDD).   
   >>>   
   >>> But by the semantics of the x86 langugage, the call to HHH does NOT   
   >>> do a "recursive simulation" since that is not a term in that language.   
   >>>   
   >>> The Call to HHH just cause the   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (b) The semantics of the x86 language.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> (c) That HHH is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates   
   >>>>      N steps of DDD.   
   >>>   
   >>> Which isn't an ACTUALY correct emulation, but only a PARTIAL correct   
   >>> emulation (since correct emulation implies EVERY instruction but a   
   >>> terminal one is followed by the next instruction).   
   >>>   
   >>> The key fact is that PARTIAL emulation doesn't reveal the future of   
   >>> the behavior past the point of the emulation.   
   >>   
   >> In other words you are trying to get away with claiming   
   >> that professor Sipser made a stupid mistake:   
   >>   
   >> H correctly simulates its input D until H correctly determines   
   >> that its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted   
   >   
   > Nope, he just laid a trap that you fell into.   
   >   
      
   He could not have possibly laid any trap you dumb bunny.   
   All of the words were my own verbatim words. It took me   
   two years to compose those exact words.   
      
   > The ONLY simulation that Professor Sipser accepts as correct, is one   
   > that shows EXACTLY the behavior of the machine being simulated.   
   >   
      
   So you are stupid enough to believe that professor Sipser   
   is stupid enough to to try and get away with disagreeing   
   with the semantics of the x86 language?   
      
   *I don't buy it. You are not that stupid you are a liar*   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)