• Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention)

    From olcott@NoOne@NoWhere.com to comp.theory,sci.logic on Fri Jul 25 18:30:38 2025
    From Newsgroup: sci.logic

    On 10/14/2022 7:51 PM, Python wrote:
    Ridiculously dishonest Peter Olcott wrote:
    On 10/14/2022 7:04 PM, Python wrote:
    Demented crank Peter Olcott wrote:
    On 10/14/2022 6:21 PM, Python wrote:
    Pathological liar Peter Olcott wrote:
    On 10/14/2022 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 10/14/22 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:

    *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
    It is dead obvious that the correct simulation of D by H would >>>>>>>> never stop running unless aborted by H thus meeting the criteria >>>>>>>> that Professor Sipser has agreed with.

    No, he agreed that if the CORRECT simulation of the input would >>>>>>> never stop running then H is correct to answer non-halting. (Not >>>>>>> the correct simulation of the input if H doesn't abort).
    *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more) >>>>>> 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.

    Read: "If ... H correctly simulates ...".

    Your simulator does not *correctly* simulates its input.


    *When you deny this you deny a tautology*
    When the line-by-line execution trace of D simulated by H exactly
    matches the line-by-line behavior that the x86 source-code of D
    specifies then we know that the simulation is correct.

    _Sipser_D()
    [000012ae] 55-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push ebp
    [000012af] 8bec-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a mov ebp,esp
    [000012b1] 8b4508-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [000012b4] 50-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push eax
    [000012b5] 8b4d08-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [000012b8] 51-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push ecx
    [000012b9] e880fdffff-a-a-a-a call 0000103e
    [000012be] 83c408-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a add esp,+08
    [000012c1] 85c0-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a test eax,eax
    [000012c3] 7404-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a jz 000012c9
    [000012c5] 33c0-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a xor eax,eax
    [000012c7] eb05-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a jmp 000012ce
    [000012c9] b801000000-a-a-a-a mov eax,00000001
    [000012ce] 5d-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a pop ebp
    [000012cf] c3-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a ret
    Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]

    Sipser_H: Begin Simulation-a-a Execution Trace Stored at:111fa8
    -a-amachine-a-a stack-a-a-a-a stack-a-a-a-a machine-a-a-a assembly
    -a-aaddress-a-a address-a-a data-a-a-a-a-a code-a-a-a-a-a-a language
    -a-a========-a ========-a ========-a =========-a =============
    [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push ebp-a-a-a-a // Begin
    Sipser_D
    [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec-a-a-a-a-a-a mov ebp,esp
    [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508-a-a-a-a mov eax,[ebp+08]
    [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push eax-a-a-a-a-a // push
    Sipser_D
    [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08-a-a-a-a mov ecx,[ebp+08]
    [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a push ecx-a-a-a-a-a // push
    Sipser_D
    [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call 0000103e // call
    Sipser_H
    Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

    You deliberately omitted part of traces.

    Not at all, that is the entire simulation of D that H performs.
    With the updated (Turing computable) H it never calls its simulated self.

    You did, and you snapped the part of my post containing the part you
    omitted. This is ridiculous.

    reestablishing my original post:

    You deliberately omitted part of traces.

    $ diff -u t1 t2
    --- t1-a-a-a 2022-10-14 18:49:42.510901630 +0200
    +++ t2-a-a-a 2022-10-14 18:50:02.430905326 +0200
    @@ -5,11 +5,3 @@
    -amov ecx,[ebp+08]
    -apush ecx
    -acall 0000103e
    -add esp,+08
    -test eax,eax
    -jz 000012c9
    -xor eax,eax
    -jmp 000012ce
    -mov eax,00000001
    -pop ebp
    -ret



    Actual execution differs from alleged simulation.

    Execution traces differ, as you've shown yourself.

    And, again, H answer is wrong. H answer is 0 while D halts.

    H is not an halt-decider, and does not even simulates correctly
    its input. DOUBLE FAIL.




    test
    --
    Copyright 2024 Olcott

    "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
    Genius hits a target no one else can see."
    Arthur Schopenhauer
    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2