Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:42:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0m5a9$2gl1e$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me> <v0li19$2g492$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ljuk$12q0o$2@dont-email.me> <v0lkpi$2g492$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lllg$135k7$1@dont-email.me> <v0m1bh$2gl1f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m2jd$166o1$2@dont-email.me> <v0m3t5$2gl1e$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m46m$16k3h$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 18:42:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2642990"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v0m46m$16k3h$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11546
Lines: 251

On 4/28/24 2:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2024 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2024 9:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU are the only one that says they are "Manditory".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't make them so for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YOU refuse to explain how a Halting Turing Machine can be 
>>>>>>>> correctly decider as "Non-Halting".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your "excuses" all seem to boil down to you just need to lie 
>>>>>>>> about what you are actually doing and that you refuse to even 
>>>>>>>> learn what the actual rules and language of what you are saying 
>>>>>>>> you are doing are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========