XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
On 6/29/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
