XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
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()
>>>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ;
housekeeping
>>>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
