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 14:40:30 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 102 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 21:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032"; logging-data="2142504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YNShLxuJheDSCPuABVgds" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qtVSyuqZ0DA76tLhUmaV8coOKeY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4947 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) > Mismatching the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs has been unequivocally accounted for. *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* If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen. *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence* *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence* *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence* This same method worked on an election denier, they deleted all of their claims of election fraud and left. >> >> *Shown by ordinary software engineering* When the directly executed >> H(D,D) aborts simulating its input then all of the nested simulations >> (if any) immediately totally stop running and no simulated H ever >> returns any value to any simulated D. >> > > Right, but that doesn't change the behavor of the correctly and > completely simulated input or the direct execution of the program > descirbed. > >>  From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set >> of H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls >> that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H. > > Nope. And the conclusion doesn't even follow from the incorrect premise. > > >> >> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D* >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >> > > Just LIES. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer