XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
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
--
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)
|
