On 6/5/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:This seems to be brand new computer science that I just discovered.
On 6/5/2022 8:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 06/06/2022 01:24, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:<..snip..>>>
Sure.
The question right now is what you would call a TM which evaluates
the first 10 steps of a computation, and then does something else.
What is it doing while evaluating those 10 steps?
What would I call it? POOP! It just goes to show the accuracy and
flexibility of Ben's acronym for any Peter-related concept.
But PO didn't invent the concept of (partially) simulating a
computation in order to compute certain properties of that
computation! It's been around since Turing's days, and is very useful. >>>
Mike.
That is true. I am apparently the first one that ever thought this
through well enough so that machine descriptions matching the
following pattern could be correctly determined to be non-halting:
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological"
program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and
its input to
H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P
will do. No H
can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In that a partial simulation does correctly predict the behavior of a
complete simulation it can be used to recognize infinite behavior
patterns.
Except that it doesn't since P(P) Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, which, by
the DEFINITION of the requirements of the Halting Problem, H(P,P) needs
to accept (return 1) if P(P) Halts,
On 6/5/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:This seems to be brand new computer science that I just discovered.
On 6/5/2022 8:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 06/06/2022 01:24, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:<..snip..>>>
Sure.
The question right now is what you would call a TM which evaluates >>>>>> the first 10 steps of a computation, and then does something else. >>>>>> What is it doing while evaluating those 10 steps?
What would I call it? POOP! It just goes to show the accuracy and
flexibility of Ben's acronym for any Peter-related concept.
But PO didn't invent the concept of (partially) simulating a
computation in order to compute certain properties of that
computation! It's been around since Turing's days, and is very useful. >>>>
Mike.
That is true. I am apparently the first one that ever thought this
through well enough so that machine descriptions matching the
following pattern could be correctly determined to be non-halting:
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological"
program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and >>> its input to
H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P
will do. No H
can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In that a partial simulation does correctly predict the behavior of a
complete simulation it can be used to recognize infinite behavior
patterns.
Except that it doesn't since P(P) Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, which, by
the DEFINITION of the requirements of the Halting Problem, H(P,P)
needs to accept (return 1) if P(P) Halts,
Previously no one understood that it was possible for the correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) to be computationally distinct (thus
not equivalent) to the direct execution of P(P).
Because of this all of the computer science textbooks refer to the
halting behavior of P(P) as what must be decided by the halt decider.
This same computer science also knows that a decider must compute the
mapping of its input finite string to an accept or reject state on the
basis of a property of this input encoded in this finite string.
THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ALWAYS WORKS
H computes the mapping from its input finite strings to its accept or
reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by the actual input as measured by the correct UTM simulation of this input by H.
It has been completely proven that partial simulations do correctly
predict the behavior of some complete simulations.
On 6/5/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:This seems to be brand new computer science that I just discovered.
On 6/5/2022 8:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 06/06/2022 01:24, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:<..snip..>>>
Sure.What would I call it? POOP! It just goes to show the accuracy and
The question right now is what you would call a TM which
evaluates the first 10 steps of a computation, and then does
something else. What is it doing while evaluating those 10 steps? >>>>>>
flexibility of Ben's acronym for any Peter-related concept.
But PO didn't invent the concept of (partially) simulating a
computation in order to compute certain properties of that
computation! It's been around since Turing's days, and is very
useful.
Mike.
That is true. I am apparently the first one that ever thought this
through well enough so that machine descriptions matching the
following pattern could be correctly determined to be non-halting:
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a
"pathological"
program P, called with some input, can pass its own source and >>>> its input to
H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P >>>> will do. No H
can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In that a partial simulation does correctly predict the behavior of
a complete simulation it can be used to recognize infinite behavior
patterns.
Except that it doesn't since P(P) Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, which,
by the DEFINITION of the requirements of the Halting Problem, H(P,P)
needs to accept (return 1) if P(P) Halts,
Previously no one understood that it was possible for the correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) to be computationally distinct (thus
not equivalent) to the direct execution of P(P).
By what definition of "Correct" are you using?
On 6/5/2022 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/22 10:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/5/2022 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/5/22 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:This seems to be brand new computer science that I just discovered.
On 6/5/2022 8:58 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 06/06/2022 01:24, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 6/5/2022 5:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:<..snip..>>>
Sure.What would I call it? POOP! It just goes to show the accuracy and >>>>>>> flexibility of Ben's acronym for any Peter-related concept.
The question right now is what you would call a TM which
evaluates the first 10 steps of a computation, and then does
something else. What is it doing while evaluating those 10 steps? >>>>>>>
But PO didn't invent the concept of (partially) simulating a
computation in order to compute certain properties of that
computation! It's been around since Turing's days, and is very
useful.
Mike.
That is true. I am apparently the first one that ever thought this
through well enough so that machine descriptions matching the
following pattern could be correctly determined to be non-halting:
For any program H that might determine if programs halt, a >>>>> "pathological"
program P, called with some input, can pass its own source >>>>> and its input to
H and then specifically do the opposite of what H predicts P >>>>> will do. No H
can exist that handles this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In that a partial simulation does correctly predict the behavior of
a complete simulation it can be used to recognize infinite behavior
patterns.
Except that it doesn't since P(P) Halts if H(P,P) returns 0, which,
by the DEFINITION of the requirements of the Halting Problem, H(P,P)
needs to accept (return 1) if P(P) Halts,
Previously no one understood that it was possible for the correct
simulation of the input to H(P,P) to be computationally distinct
(thus not equivalent) to the direct execution of P(P).
By what definition of "Correct" are you using?
Ordinary software engineering proves that a correct and complete x86 emulation of the input to H(P,P) never reaches its "ret" instruction.
_P()
[00001352](01) 55 push ebp
[00001353](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001355](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001358](01) 50 push eax // push P [00001359](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[0000135c](01) 51 push ecx // push P [0000135d](05) e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H [00001362](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001365](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00001367](02) 7402 jz 0000136b
[00001369](02) ebfe jmp 00001369
[0000136b](01) 5d pop ebp
[0000136c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 32:26:42 |
Calls: | 7,833 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,933 |
Messages: | 5,771,757 |