Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: 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: 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