XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
On 6/30/24 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/30/2024 7:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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()
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
