Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 06:33:58 -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: Mon, 6 May 2024 10:33:58 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="244673"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 11351 Lines: 283 On 5/6/24 12:14 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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 >> >> My trivial decider decided all of them as non-halting. >> > > Proving that your trivial decider is shit because it got factorial wrong. Right, just like H is because it gets D(D) wrong. It is JUST a correct about factorial as H is about D, which shows that the issue is the DEFINITION is SHIT (or POOP) > >> now, since D(D) Halts, just like factorial(5), why do you say that >> H(D,D) is correct to say it doesn't? >> >>> >>> 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; >>> } >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========