On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 2:20:40 AM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2022 8:05 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:56:08 PM UTC-4, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2022 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/22 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
#include <stdint.h>
#define u32 uint32_t
#include <stdint.h>
typedef void (*ptr)();
void P(ptr x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
}
I claim that H(P,P) correctly predicts that its complete and correct x86
emulation of its input would never reach the "ret" instruction of P.
To split this claim down into three parts:
You are claiming that H(P,P) terminates.
You are claiming that the value returned by H(P,P) is zero/false, indicating that P(P) would not terminate.
You are claiming that this result is correct, and that P(P) does indeed not terminate.
This is what you are saying, correct?
So let's look at P(P). The first thing is does is call H(P,P). This, you have stated many times including just above, terminates. It gives a value zero. Thus the infinite loop is not entered, and the next instruction to be executed is the "return".
So P(P) does terminate, contrary to what you claimed.
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:50:31 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:I'm a scientists, not a mathematician.
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 13:16:36 UTC+1, olcott wrote:There is only one explanation. What you call the "dry-run" is not that
On 6/22/2022 2:55 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:That's your conclusion from your observations and reasoning. You've
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 04:10:45 UTC+1, olcott wrote:That is an actual immutable verified fact.
On 6/21/2022 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:You've dry-run P(P) and it doesn't halt. Additionally the halt decider H >>>>> reports it as non-halting. So it's reasonable to assume that H is correct.
Linz and others were aware that: A halt decider must compute the mapping >>>>>> from its inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the actual >>>>>> behavior that is actually specified by these inputs.
Right, and P(P) reaches the ret instruction of H(P,P) returns 0, so H >>>>>>> was incorrect in its mapping, since the behavior of P(P) is the
DEFINITION of the behavior of H(P,P),
Linz and others made the false assumption that the actual behavior that >>>>>> is actually specified by the inputs to a simulating halt decider is not >>>>>> the same as the direct execution of these inputs. They were unaware of >>>>>> this because no one previously fully examined a simulating halt decider >>>>>> ever before.
especially if that is what P calls
and P is claimed to be built by the Linz template.
So, either P isn't built right, or H isn't built fight, or H is wrong. >>>>>>
However, when run, P(P) halts. So what are we to conclude? That "the >>>>> actual behaviour that is actually specified by the inputs to a simulating >>>>> halt decider is not the same as the direct execution of these inputs"? >>>>
dry-run P(P), and it doesn't halt. You've run H on P(P), and it
reports "non-halting". You've run P(P), and it halts. So one
explanation is the one you've given but, as I said, that explanation
has rather far-reaching consequences.
same as the P(P). We've known this since the "line 15 commented out"
days. There are two computations -- one that is not stopped and one
that is, the "dry-run" and the run, the "simulation of the input to
H(P,P)" and P(P). All PO is doing is trying to find words that hide
what's going on.
The example I always use is that you are doing an energy budget for tigers. You work how much they use on running about, lactating, maintaining their body temperature, and so on.
Now let's say that you find that all results are within a few percentage points
of a similar budget done for lions. You'd instantly accept this data.
Now let's say that the results are wildly different from a previous budget done
for lions. You wouldn't just accept that data. You'd check. You'd want to understand the reasons tigers spend far less energy on movement than lions.
Now let's say that the result show that tigers use more energy than they
take in food. Would you instantly conclude that the law of conservation of energy must be incorrect?
The third is what PO is doing.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 106:40:38 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,209 |
Messages: | 5,335,410 |