Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 12:49:52 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 249
Message-ID: <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me>
 <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 19:49:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c0c43cbc173c29c782eabc90f798410";
	logging-data="1574611"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+RmfFRFNnDI2/nDymcMkis"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wbKJ+JT3Mqr9qL0SDxtVTumlKgw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 11965

On 5/10/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/10/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2024 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like ZFC there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no universal set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations of H simulating itself simulating D(D). Every 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time Lines 1,2,3 are simulated again defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one more level of recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step  of D  is simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of many more simulations that only these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D 
>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs where
>>>>>>>>>>>> each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same 
>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) 
>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it 
>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its line
>>>>>>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches 
>>>>>>>>>>> that line
>>>>>>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>>>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>>>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is 
>>>>>>>>> allows HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested 
>>>>>>>>> (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely 
>>>>>>>>> differently to the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: 
>>>>>>>>> it goes through a totally separate "I am called in nested mode" 
>>>>>>>>> code path!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>>>>>>>> be a computable function.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>>>>>>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's the proof:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to 
>>>>>>> the direct execution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is 
>>>>>> counter-factual*
>>>>>> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H 
>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========