XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 11/3/2021 4:03 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-11-03 14:02, olcott wrote:
On 11/3/2021 2:02 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-11-03 12:23, olcott wrote:
On 11/3/2021 12:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-11-03 11:19, olcott wrote:
On 11/3/2021 12:09 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-11-03 10:14, olcott wrote:
On 11/3/2021 11:00 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
On 2021-11-03 09:47, olcott wrote:
THE IS THE MOST RECENT UPDATE TO THE CRITERION MEASURE
A halt decider only need answer whether or not the correct >>>>>>>>>> pure simulation of its input would ever reach a final state of >>>>>>>>>> this input by a simulating halt decider.
The halting problem already defines what the criterion used by >>>>>>>>> a halt decider must be. You don't get to update it if that's >>>>>>>>> the problem you want to work on.
André
No one here seems capable of understanding is that when a halt >>>>>>>> decider does correctly decide the halt status of its input then >>>>>>>> its input has had its halt status correctly decided.
Right. And since yours doesn't correctly decide the halt status
of its input then its input has not had its halt status correctly >>>>>>> decided.
The only criteria for correctly deciding the halt status of the
actual input is whether or not the correct pure simulation of this >>>>>> input would ever reach a final state.
Every other criteria changes the subject to an entirely different
comutation.
Both 'halting problem' and 'halt decider' were defined before you
were born by people who actually UNDERSTOOD the topic.
The definitions of these things are precise, unambiguous, and
clearly indicate the actual criterion which a halt decider must use
in making its decision. That criterion makes no reference to pure
simulations. It refers only to whether the computation represented
by the input string halts.
It is impossible for any halt decider to be incorrect when the
correct pure simulation of its input never halts and it reports not
halting.
Not if it contradicts the actual correct answer as determined by the
criterion which defines the halting problem since that criterion
alone determines which answer is correct.
It is impossible for any halt decider to be incorrect when the correct
pure simulation of its input never halts and it reports not halting.
But your halt decider doesn't implement a 'pure simulation' under any reasonable definition of the term.
_P()
[00000c36](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c37](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
[00000c3c](01) 50 push eax
[00000c3d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
[00000c40](01) 51 push ecx
[00000c41](05) e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H
[00000c46](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c49](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000c4b](02) 7402 jz 00000c4f
[00000c4d](02) ebfe jmp 00000c4d
[00000c4f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c50](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= ============= [00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp [00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P [00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P [00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
We can perfectly know that H(P,P) does precisely simulate the first
seven instructions of P when it simulates the first seven instructions
of P.
We can also know that when it perfectly repeats this sequence again that
it has acted as a pure simulator for the execution of these two sequences.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)