From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy
On 7/7/24 10:16 AM, olcott wrote:
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
Sufficient knowledge of the x86 language conclusively proves
that the call from DDD correctly emulated by HHH to HHH(DDD)
cannot possibly return for any pure function HHH.
No, you don;t understand the difference between the partial simulation
of DDD done by HHH from the actual behavior of DDD.
Since HHH is a pure function, then if HHH returns to main, it will also
return to DDD, so HHH can NOT POSSIBLE correctly determine that DDD will
not halt if HHH eventually will return an answer. PERIOD.
YOU LOGIC IS JUST INCORRECT.
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
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.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
Remember, and you keep on ignoring this fact, to the point it has become
a LIE, that Professor Sipser, like most people in the field define that
a "Correct Simulation" is a simulation is a simulaition that exactly reproduces the behavior of the program represented by the input, and
thus, is a simulator that never stops simulating until it reaches a
final state.
Your H neither does this, nor correctly predict the behavior of such a simulation of its input, it can not use the second paragraph.
(a) HHH determines that it must abort DDD
(b) HHH reports that DDD will not stop unless aborted
(c) HHH aborts its simulation of DDD
If HHH reported that it did not need to abort DDD before HHH
aborts DDD this is like you need groceries and report that
you do not need groceries before you got more groceries: a lie.
But HHH lies to itself (which means you as the programmer LIED), as DDD
when actualy CORRECTLY SIMULATED shows that DDD will call HHH(DDD) and
then that HHH will INCORREECTLY determine that it must abort its
simulation of DD (which doesn't affect the DDD that is calling it) then
it return to DDD the INCORRECT ANSWER that DDD doesn't halt, and then
DDD halts.
Thus step (a) never occured, at least for the grounds required. HHH just
met the programmed conditions which are a false positive for non-halting.
Thus, this, like most of your logic, is based on LIES.
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114