Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: Sun, 5 May 2024 21:33:11 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 241 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 04:33:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ca33c147f4bf21714ceb8650be68951"; logging-data="2456051"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Xl9CFfUJxqmuVgxFQ4PDP" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZQrBejgy7Cfn32JDYnErA323ck0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9471 On 5/5/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2024 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/24 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using >>>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main >>>>>>> calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed >>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but >>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer >>>>>>> to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is >>>>>>> know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just >>>>>>> clearly true is just a pathological lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to >>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those >>>>>>> methods were discussed a long time back) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by >>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D >>>>>> calls that H. >>>>> >>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then >>>>> resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several >>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once. >>>> >>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where >>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls. >>>> >>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where >>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls. >>>> >>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where >>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls. >>>> >>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where >>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls. >>>> >>>> Elements of this set of H/D pairs simulate from 1 to infinite steps >>>> of D and each one of them does this in an infinite number of >>>> different ways. >>> >>> (this is wrong, as EACH H only simulates its one D one way, so each >>> one doesn't simulate in an infinite number of ways, but I think you >>> are just failing at grammer here >>> >>>> >>>> There are an infinite number of different ways for H to simulate >>>> 1 step of D. >>> >>> So? >>> >> >> *Your system clock is off you responded to my 5:30 post at 4:56* > > No, you don't seem to understand about TIME ZONES. > > I guess that is too advanced for you. > >> >>> The TWO methods I posted still follow that description and show how H >>> can simulate past the point that you say NO H can get past, >>> >> >> *This has already been proven to be dishonest* > > Nope, you seem to be stuck on the example below, which is not either of > the two methods Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise everyone will know that you are lying. > I showed how to simulate past the call, but showed how > if your statement WAS made to be correct, how it implies a trivial > decider could also be considered correct. > There is no trivial decider that correctly recognizes recursive simulation and correctly decides these inputs void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N) { Infinite_Recursion(N); } void Infinite_Loop() { HERE: goto HERE; } int factorial(int n) { if (n >= 1) return n*factorial(n-1); else return 1; } > I have mentioned this several times, but I guess you can't understand > basic English. > Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise everyone will know that you are lying. >> >> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>  >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW* >>  >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless >>  >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When >>  >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting. >>  > >>  > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions. >>  > >>  > It means that >>  > >>  > int H(ptr m, ptr d) { >>  > return 0; >>  > } >>  > >>  > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========