XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
On 6/29/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> >>>>>> 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 !!!
But the question to Professor Sipser was, as you quoted:
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.
Which said NOTHING about the x86 language,
So, who is the liar now?
>
> _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.
>
Which wasn't what we were talking about with Professor Sipser, who never
saw any of that.
I guess you just have a major brain malfunction and can't keep your lies
straight.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
