XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: richard@damon-family.org
On 7/9/24 11:10 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/7/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
>>> that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
>>> cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
>> No, you don;t understand the difference between the partial simulation
>> of DDD done by HHH from the actual behavior of DDD.
>>
>> Since HHH is a pure function, then if HHH returns to main, it will
>> also return to DDD, so HHH can NOT POSSIBLE correctly determine that
>> DDD will not halt if HHH eventually will return an answer. PERIOD.
>>
>> YOU LOGIC IS JUST INCORRECT.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Remember, and you keep on ignoring this fact, to the point it has
>> become a LIE, that Professor Sipser, like most people in the field
>> define that a "Correct Simulation" is a simulation is a simulaition
>> that exactly reproduces the behavior of the program represented by the
>> input, and thus, is a simulator that never stops simulating until it
>> reaches a final state.
>
> You are making this same mistake and thus ignoring sequence
> of sequence, selection and iteration:
>
> *I have never explained this issue to Ben this clearly before*
> Ben seems to believe that HHH must report that it need not
> abort its emulation of DDD because AFTER HHH has already
> aborted this emulation DDD does not need to be aborted.
>
> That *is* exactly analogous to you saying that you don't need
> groceries when you do need groceries before you get more groceries.
>
Bad anaolgy, as I am willfull.
Since DDD and HHH are DETERMINISTIC programs, here is the ACTUAL efffect
of "Sequence, Selection, and Iteration".
The behavior of DDD begins with DDD calling HHH, and then HHH begins an
emulation of ANOTHER copy of DDD (which will be some steps behind this
actual behavior), and that emulation will contine (again BEHIND the
actual behavior of the DDD) until HHH decides to stop its emulation and
thus stop seeing more of the behavior of DDD that has already been
estabilished by its deterministic execution. Then the UNSEEN behavior
has HHH return to DDD and DDD returning.
Note there is a difference between the Behavior of the DDD that HHH will
be simulating, and the simulation done by HHH, in that the first is
COMPLETE, but the second is only partial if HHH ever aborts is emulation.
We can not talk of HHH not aborting its emulation, (at least if the HHH
we are talking about does) as it has no choice about what it does.
Programs can not "lie", only the programmers can lie about what he
claims the program does. A given pieece of computational code has a
unique behavior (when you take into account it FULL input, inhcluding
the "hidden bits")
Thus, HHH reports what it reports, and if it reports non-halting, it is
just wrong, but the programmer that claimed it was a correct halt
decider is the liar.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
