• Re: HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) derive same non-halting execut

    From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 29 21:25:06 2024
    Op 29.jul.2024 om 18:43 schreef olcott:
    On 7/28/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-27 19:27:16 +0000, olcott said:

    It is a verified fact that HHH get the correct halt
    status decision in that HHH exactly matched that same
    behavior pattern as this:

    No, it is not a verified fact. It is obvious from the code of DDD
    that DDD halts if HHH does, and otherwise HHH does not answer.
    Therefore, if HHH answers, the correct answer is "halts".


    HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) derive equivalent
    non-halting behavior patterns in the execution trace of
    their input.

    _Infinite_Recursion()
    [0000215a] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
    [0000215b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
    [0000215d] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
    [00002162] 5d         pop ebp
    [00002163] c3         ret
    Size in bytes:(0010) [00002163]

    *Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
    Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934 [0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
    [0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line [0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line [0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
    [0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line [0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
    Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
    *Repeat first 3 lines with no conditional branch to prevent repeats*


    _DDD()
    [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
    [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
    [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
    [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
    [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
    [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
    [00002174] c3         ret
    Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]

    *DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
    Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895 [00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
    [00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line [0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD [0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH

    Olcott cheats by hiding that a correct simulation of the call
    instruction, according to the semantics of the x86 language, continues
    to simulate the instructions of HHH, which has conditional branch
    instructions.

    [00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
    [00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line [0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD [0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH

    Again, Olcotts cheat by hiding that a correct simulation of the call instruction, according to the semantics of the x86 language, continues
    to simulate the instructions of HHH, which has conditional branch
    instructions.

    Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
    *Repeat first 4 lines with no conditional branch to prevent repeats*

    Ignoring the conditional branch instruction is a severe deviation from
    the semantics of the semantics of the x86 language. So, olcott's own
    criterion tells us that the simulation is incorrect.

    No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times
    olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such
    a simulation is incorrect.

    Sipser would agree that this incorrect simulation cannot be used to
    detect a non-halting behaviour.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Tue Jul 30 10:04:52 2024
    On 2024-07-29 16:43:07 +0000, olcott said:

    On 7/28/2024 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2024-07-27 19:27:16 +0000, olcott said:

    It is a verified fact that HHH get the correct halt
    status decision in that HHH exactly matched that same
    behavior pattern as this:

    No, it is not a verified fact. It is obvious from the code of DDD
    that DDD halts if HHH does, and otherwise HHH does not answer.
    Therefore, if HHH answers, the correct answer is "halts".


    HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) derive equivalent
    non-halting behavior patterns in the execution trace of
    their input.

    Doesn't matter but suggests that the tracing system is defective.
    What really matters it that DDD halts or HHH is not a decider.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)