Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 22:45:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0k6eo$2djoe$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v0k70f$lpet$1@dont-email.me> <v0k9co$2djoe$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ka8h$qb8e$1@dont-email.me> <v0kb4e$2djoe$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v0kcio$qqsq$1@dont-email.me> <v0kftr$2djof$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 05:45:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="902651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hiKMbaheemKAa59H5ld85"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G4iixDNCYnTlBHo8EweGBDTztHo=
In-Reply-To: <v0kftr$2djof$6@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7196

On 4/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/27/2024 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/27/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/27/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator.
>>>>>>>> This system enables one C function to execute another C function
>>>>>>>> in debug step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate 
>>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>>> context for D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H
>>>>>>>> is able to simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to
>>>>>>>> recursive simulations is RAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>>>> //
>>>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)    // uses x86 emulator to simulate its 
>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>> 03
>>>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>>>> 11
>>>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>>>> 14   D(D);
>>>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Execution Trace
>>>>>>>> Line 14: main() invokes D(D)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>> Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates 
>>>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simulation invariant
>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it dead obvious to everyone here when examining the execution
>>>>>>>> trace of lines 14 and 06 above that D correctly simulated by H 
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own line 09?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that you fail to mention that you have admitted that you 
>>>>>>> are NOT working on the Halting Problem, despite trying to use 
>>>>>>> terminology similar to it, but having stipulated definition that 
>>>>>>> are in conflict with computaiton theory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note, "keeps repeating (unless aborted)" is a misleading 
>>>>>>> statement, as your H will ALWAYS abort this input, and thus it 
>>>>>>> NEVER will "Keep repeating".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't like me pointing out the problem because you prefer to 
>>>>>>> be able to LIE to people about what you are doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You work has NOTHING to do with Halting, as your H/D are not even 
>>>>>>> turing equivalenet to their namesakes in the proof you like to 
>>>>>>> mention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the exact verbatim post and the first respondent agreed
>>>>>> and immediately noticed that I was referring to the halting problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I will go with what I said, you just don't know C very
>>>>>> well and want to keep that hidden behind rhetoric and denigration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you couch it to SOUND like the halting problem, but it isn't 
>>>>> as you have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED the meaning of terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> And thus, to act like it is, just makes you a LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting is NOT about H being able to simulate it input to the final 
>>>>> state. PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I could show how it is but you prefer to believe otherwise and refuse
>>>> to go through the detailed steps required.
>>>
>>> No, you CAN'T, because you have FUNDAMENTALLY changed the question, 
>>> sinc eyou claim that even though D(D) Halts, that H(D,D) is correct 
>>> to say not halting.
>>>
>>
>> It is not my error it is your indoctrination.
> 
> So, How is H(D,D) saying false correct if D(D) Halts?
> 

You refuse to go through the mandatory steps.

> SInce the DEFINITION of the quesiton that H, the Halt Decider, is to 
> answer is if the computation describe by its input (that is D(D) ) will 
> halt when run.
> 
> You have to hide behind obfuscation, blusgter and LIES.
> 
> Since you don't seem to know that actual meaning of the words you use, 
> as you have even occationally admitted, it is clear who knows what they 
> are talking about and who doesn't.
> 
> I will also point out that you have effectively admitted that your 
> statements are unsopported as you always fail to provide actual 
> references to accepted ground for your claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> It is psychotic that people really believes that the principle of
>>>> explosion is valid inference even though there is zero doubt the it
>>>> derives the non-sequitur error.
>>>
>>> Nope, that just means you don't understand how logic works.
>>>
>>> YOU are the psychotic.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism*
>>>> Socrates is a man.
>>>> Socrates is not a man.
>>>> Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
>>>
>>> Nope. And that is because the principle of explosion is NOT a 
>>> "syllogism"
>>>
>>> You are again just proving your stupidity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion does not follow from the premises, thus the 
>>>> non-sequitur error. 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>
>>> So, which step doesn't is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Givens:
>>> Proposition A is True.
>>> Proposition A is False.
>>>
>>
>> The syllogism would be dead right there.
>> Some A are True
>> No A are True
> 
> So, you don't understand what the principle of explosion actually is.
> 

Some A are True
No A are True
therefore B

It is categorically impossible to show:
(a) How the above two categorical propositions entail B
(b) That the above two categorical propositions are not isomorphic to POE.

You are simply indoctrinated at your core.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer