Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:28:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 288 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:28:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895"; logging-data="1371491"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uL00lAaTP+I1LPdBPxlCc" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wkX0J8WLoAsXv5P8o7hSqK3PMVM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 13862 On 4/28/2024 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/28/24 3:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========