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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ===
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 22:39:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me> <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 05:39:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe47412d5222aa086f42d5af46fe483";
	logging-data="3208757"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+m/GVzInl+FLfNZVc+JLJb"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aq0FrMV6pWVk5ERfoGd/aMZWQic=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6490

On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm 
>>>>>> enables
>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code 
>>>>>> of its
>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly 
>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will 
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 
>>>>>> 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this 
>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>
>>>
>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, 
>>> I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
> 
> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the 
> absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that 
> actually simulates the input to the end state.
> 

*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).

When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*

as *D NEVER simulated by H*

you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of 
> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect that 
> there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the rules of 
> logic say the person asserting the existance of something has the burden 
> of proof.
> 
> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it 
> means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
> 
> 
>>
>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>> NOT telling the truth.
> 
> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
> 
> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it, call 
> myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and you can 
> not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop posting your 
> insaine ideas about halting.
> 
> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to 
> make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
> 
>>
>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a 
>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>
>>
>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>> 02 {
>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>>
>> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>
>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
> 
> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must 
> simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
> 
> CHECK.
> 
> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
> 
> 
>>
>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>
> 

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