Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: References: 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: 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 ==========