XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 6/29/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/29/24 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>> >>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Right, and he could have seen the errors in your apparent
> misunderstanding of the words and accepted them, knowing that they were
> actually meaningless.
>
>>> 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?
>
> The question said NOTHING of the x86 language, so it doesn't matter.
>
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
_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]
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly
return.
--
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)
|
