XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 6/29/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
