Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 23 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 54:44:35 |
Calls: | 583 |
Files: | 1,139 |
D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
Messages: | 111,801 |
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:*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
*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).
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.