On 11/5/2021 6:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> As soon as we verify that the correct pure simulation of the input to
>> H(P,0) never reaches the last address of P at c50 we know that the
>> input to H(P,P) never halts thus the correctly halt status of
>> H(P,P)==0;
>
> But P(P) halts, so H(P,P) == 0 is the wrong result.

When the correct pure simulation of the actual input to the halt decider
never halts then the halt decider is necessarily correct when it reports
that its input never halts.

Disagreeing with a logical tautology is a break from reality.

A correct pure simulation is not verified on the basis of any mere
assumptions. As long as the first seven x86 instructions of the source
code of P are executed in order and the seventh instruction causes this
cycle to repeat then we know that H(P,P) performed a correct pure
simulation of its input for the entire 14 steps of this simulation.

Saying the the pure simulation is not correct on any other basis is a
break from reality.

If both P(P) halts and the input to H(P,P) never halts are established
facts (and they are) then it must be the case that P(P) and H(P,P) are
not computationally equivalent to each other.

> An H this is wrong
> about this key case is not interesting, unlike your H from Dec 2018:
>
> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz specs
> does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing Machines H / Ĥ
> proving them wrong."[1]
>
> Three years of progressively walking back that claim and you are left
> with some C function H that is wrong about H(Ĥ, Ĥ). No one thinks such
> an H does not exist. It's trivially obvious that an H that does /not/
> meet Linz's spec (for the (Ĥ, Ĥ) case) exists. They are ten-a-penny.
>
> [1] Message-ID: <JbydneYGrrpProjBnZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
>

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein

On 11/6/2021 7:53 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 November 2021 at 12:21:49 UTC, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/5/2021 6:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> As soon as we verify that the correct pure simulation of the input to
>>>> H(P,0) never reaches the last address of P at c50 we know that the
>>>> input to H(P,P) never halts thus the correctly halt status of
>>>> H(P,P)==0;
>>>
>>> But P(P) halts, so H(P,P) == 0 is the wrong result.
>> When the correct pure simulation of the actual input to the halt decider
>> never halts then the halt decider is necessarily correct when it reports
>> that its input never halts.
>>
>> Disagreeing with a logical tautology is a break from reality.
>> A correct pure simulation is not verified on the basis of any mere
>> assumptions. As long as the first seven x86 instructions of the source
>> code of P are executed in order and the seventh instruction causes this
>> cycle to repeat then we know that H(P,P) performed a correct pure
>> simulation of its input for the entire 14 steps of this simulation.
>>
> The first seven steps are indeed simulated. But the next seven steps are
> simulated by the copy of H that is called from P.

Conclusively proving that the correct pure simulation of the input to
H(P,P) never halts, thus H(P,P)==0 is correct.

> So they shouldn't appear
> in the instruction trace. If we simulate "push ebp" we don't actually push
> ebp to the stack. We create a virtual stack in memory and push a value to
> it.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein