XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 8/2/2025 4:30 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.aug.2025 om 17:12 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/1/2025 4:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 30.jul.2025 om 16:52 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 7/30/2025 4:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 30.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This just occurred to me:
>>>>>> *HHH(DDD)==0 is also correct for another different reason*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if we construed the HHH that DDD calls a part of the
>>>>>> program under test it is true that neither the simulated
>>>>>> DDD nor the simulated HHH cannot possibly reach their own
>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>> Indeed. But there are different reasons:
>>>>> The simulating HHH fails to reach the final halt state of the
>>>>> simulation because it does a premature abort,
>>>> *I challenge you to show a premature abort*
>>>
>>> This has been presented tro you many times, but you close your eyes
>>> for it and pretend that it does not exist.>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>>>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> We have told you that the suggestion that these 18 bytes are the
>>> whole input is misleading and incorrect. The input also includes all
>>> function called by DDD, directly or indirectly, including the HHH
>>> that aborts after a few cycles.
>>> This input specifies a halting program as other correct simulators
>>> and direct execution prove.
>>>
>>
>> Neither the directly executed HHH() the directly executed DDD()
>> not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can possibly ever stop running
>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.
>
> It is an irrelevant change of subject to imagine a hypothetical non-
> input that has no abort code.
>
*Not according to the leading author of theory of computation textbooks*
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.
>>
>> Turing machine halt deciders are only accountable for the
>> behavior that their inputs specifies thus the behavior
>> of non-input direct executions has always been outside
>> of their domain. The DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>> possibly halt proves that HHH is correct to reject its input.
>
>
> No, it shows that HHH fails to reach the final halt state, where a
> simulator (even when named HHH) that does not abort,has no problem to
> reach the final halt state.
>
Where the Hell are you getting that from?
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
Prove your statement on this code.
>>
>>>>
>>>> We have been over this too many times. If it actually
>>>> is a premature abort then you could specify the number
>>>> of N instructions of DDD that must be correctly emulated
>>>> by HHH such that DDD reaches its own final halt state.
>>>
>>> As usual a false claim.
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> HHH(DDD);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>
>> If there is an actual *premature abort* then there
>> is a specific point in the execution trace where
>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH stops running without
>> ever being aborted. Otherwise you are using the term
>> *premature abort* incorrectly.
> Illogical, counter-factual and incorrect claim without evidence.
What do you mean by premature abort?
The actual word "premature" means too early.
If the abort is too early then there is a point
in the execution trace that is not too early.
> It is exactly the premature abort that causes that the final halt state
> is not reached. Of, course the trace of that prematurely aborted
> simulation does not show the last part of a correct simulation.
In other words when DDD calls its own simulator HHH in
recursive simulation this is exactly the same thing as
DDD never calling its own simulator HHH1 in recursive
simulation?
Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
> But a comparison with a correct simulation done by e.g. HHH1, shows the
> exact point where the final halt state is reached and where HHH does the
> premature abort.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
