XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 7/22/24 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   >> Python  writes:   
   >>   
   >> Olcott (annotated):   
   >>   
   >>>    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H   
   >>>    correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running   
   >>>   
   >>>    [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been   
   >>>     fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and   
   >>>     "correctly simulate"]   
   >>>   
   >>>    unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly   
   >>>    report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>   
   >> I don't think that is the shell game.  PO really /has/ an H (it's   
   >> trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)   
   >> *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.  He knows and accepts that   
   >> P(P) actually does stop.  The wrong answer is justified by what would   
   >> happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.   
   >>   
   >> (I've gone back to his previous names what P is Linz's H^.)   
   >>   
   >>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be   
   >>> right".   
   >>   
   >> I don't think that's the right paraphrase.  He is saying if P were   
   >> different (built from a non-aborting H) H's answer would be the right   
   >> one.   
   >>   
   >>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.   
   >>   
   >> But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not   
   >> halted.  That much is a truism.   
   >   
   > It is also a truism that any input that must be aborted to   
   > prevent the non-termination of the simulating termination   
   > analyzer does specify non-terminating behavior or it would   
   > never need to aborted.   
      
   Right, and since if you give AND of the DDD that call an HHH that aborts   
   and returns (where the input still calls that HHH as required) to a   
   simulator the just runs to completion (put into memory in unused memory   
   space) it WILL simulate to the completion state, shows that by even your   
   definition, those DDD are HALTING.   
      
   Your problem is you claim that NO decider can simulate it, but you only   
   gave that input to ONE simulator, and one that doesn't simulate it far   
   enough.   
      
   You just don't understand that the input MUST include ALL the code that   
   the program will execute, or you just can't simulate that input more   
   that 4 steps, so your logic is just broken,   
      
   >   
   > We compute the mapping from the finite string machine code   
   > of D to the behavior that this finite string of x86 machine   
   > code specifies on the basis of D correctly emulated by H   
   > according to the semantics of this x86 machine code.   
      
   And if you give that input D, that calls the H that answers by aborting   
   its simulation (and thus NOT doing a correct simulation by the   
   definitions that allow simulation to reveal full behavior) and give that   
   to a DIFFERENT H, at an unused memory location, it WILL simulate the   
   input to the end,   
      
   >   
   >> What's wrong is to pronounce that   
   >> answer as being correct for the D that does, in fact, stop.   
   >>   
   >>> And Peter Olcott is a [*beep*]   
   >>   
   >> It's certainly dishonest to claim support from an expert who clearly   
   >> does not agree with the conclusions.  Pestering, and then tricking,   
   >> someone into agreeing to some vague hypothetical is not how academic   
   >> research is done.  Had PO come clean and ended his magic paragraph with   
   >> "and therefore 'does not 'halt' is the correct answer even though D   
   >> halts" he would have got a more useful reply.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You are conflating two different process instances that   
   > have different process states. The D correctly simulated   
   > by H is an entirely different process than D(D) directly   
   > executed in main().   
      
   But the MUST have the same behavior, and the do as described above.   
      
   All you are doing is showing your utter ignorance of how programs work.   
      
   >   
   > D correctly emulated by H specifies recursive emulation   
   > that must be aborted. D(D) directly executed in main()   
   > does not specify recursive emulation that must be aborted.   
      
   But you H don't correctly emulate their input if the abort, and thus   
   don't give the full detail of the behavior of the full input.   
      
   >   
   > The D correctly simulated by H must be aborted in the same   
   > way that when you are hungry you must eat.   
      
   No, I guess you never heard of fasting? Some people will go "hungry" for   
   quite a while. And the metaphore is incorrect as "Needs to be aborts" is   
   a constant property of a given program, while "hungery" is a transient   
   property of a being.   
      
   >   
   > The D(D) directly executed in main() need not be aborted   
   > in the same way that you are no longer hungry after you   
   > have eaten.   
      
   Bad analogy, Just shows your stupdity.   
      
   >   
   >> Let's keep in mind this is exactly what he's saying:   
   >>   
   >>    "Yes [H(P,P) == false] is the correct answer even though P(P) halts."   
   >>   
   >> Why?  Because:   
   >>   
   >>    "we can prove that Halts() did make the correct halting decision when   
   >>    we comment out the part of Halts() that makes this decision and   
   >>    H_Hat() remains in infinite recursion"   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)