Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:07:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 168 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:07:21 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7b6b7ddfe8775f34f568700240d9d1b"; logging-data="2978235"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+t0xGtU1zXh43YNJyAZkB3" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5YCXSY/7A97TIsAzorO9y6x3cvI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8103 On 6/27/2024 1:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-26 12:55:43 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/26/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-25 17:29:12 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/25/2024 9:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 25.jun.2024 om 15:12 schreef olcott: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 7:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 24.jun.2024 om 23:04 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:36 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:48:19 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:17:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> That code is not from the mentined trace file. In that file >>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> is at the addresses 2093..20a4. According to the trace no >>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the address is executed (because that address points to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the last >>>>>>>>>>>>> byte of a three byte instruction. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order to make my examples I must edit the code and this >>>>>>>>>>>> changes the >>>>>>>>>>>> addresses of some functions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to make an example when you already have one >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> file mentioned in the subject line? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I had to make a few more examples such as HH1(DD,DD) >>>>>>>>> AFACT HH1 is the same as HH0, right? What happens when HH1 >>>>>>>>> tries to >>>>>>>>> simulate a function DD1 that only calls HH1? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> typedef uint32_t u32; >>>>>>>> u32 H(u32 P, u32 I); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int P(u32 x) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    H(P,P); >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am going to have to go through my code and standardize my names. >>>>>>>> H(P,P) was the original name. Then I had to make a one parameter >>>>>>>> version, a version that is identical to H, except P does not call >>>>>>>> it and then versions using different algorithms. People have never >>>>>>>> been able to understand the different algorithm. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr2)(); >>>>>>>> int  HH(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH >>>>>>>> int HH1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH >>>>>>>> int  HHH(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH >>>>>>>> int HHH1(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *The different algorithm version has been deprecated* >>>>>>>> int  H(ptr2 , ptr2 I);  // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H >>>>>>>> int H1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *It is much easier for people to see the infinite recursion* >>>>>>>> *behavior pattern when they see it actually cycle through the* >>>>>>>> *same instructions twice* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twice is not equal to infinitely. When will you see that? >>>>>>> It is strange that you call that an infinite recursion, when H >>>>>>> aborts after two cycles and the simulated H cannot reach its own >>>>>>> abort operation, because it is aborted when it had only one more >>>>>>> cycle to go. >>>>>>> None of the aborted simulations would cycle more than twice, so >>>>>>> infinite recursion is not seen for an H that aborts the >>>>>>> simulation of itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>> int H0(ptr P); >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    H0(DDD); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> int main() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    H0(DDD); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>>>>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>>>>> [00002183] c3               ret >>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>>>>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>>>> >>>>> Contradictio in terminis. The fact that the simulated H0 does not >>>>> return shows that the simulation is incorrect. >>>> >>>> void Infinite_Recursion() >>>> { >>>>    Infinite_Recursion(); >>>> } >>>> >>>> Ah so you simply *DON'T BELIEVE IN* infinite recursion where a >>>> correct simulating termination analyzer would be required to >>>> abort its simulation to correctly report non-terminating behavior. >>>> That seems quite dumb of you. >>>> >>>>> The simulated H0 does not return, because it is aborted one cycle >>>>> too soon. One cycle later it would return. >>>> >>>> Complete lack of sufficient software engineering skill. >>> >>> The relevant area of software engineering is testing. The usual >>> attitude of >>> software engineers is that a program is accpted when it has been >>> sufficiently >>> tested and passed all tests. Consequently, an important part of >>> sofware work >>> is the design of tests. >>> >>> In the current context the program to be tested is a halting decider. >> >> *NO IT IS NOT. H0 IS ONLY AN X86 EMULATOR* >> After you quit lying about the behavior of DDD correctly >> emulated by H0 then we can move on to the next point. > > This discussion is about HH0. The larger context of this discussion is > halting deiders and proofs of non-existence of halting deciders. > > You have not disagreed with anyting I said, so if you say that I lied > then you reveal that you lied. > Until you agree with this we cannot move on to the next and final point that proves I am correct. Proving that point may possibly take longer than the rest of my life so let's not delay this OK? [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer