Path: ...!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 you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation? Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:37:09 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 129 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 23:37:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="853a48eea7a3e841565c364baea8e5bf"; logging-data="2635919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KI/3HhtqHaUcSNDajQinG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:CJ+X7S4TEpVQnhapqAMcUJz+O7U= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6922 On 5/24/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/24/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/24/2024 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/24/24 1:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/24/2024 5:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 24.mei.2024 om 03:44 schreef Richard Damon: >>>>>> On 5/23/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C >>>>>>> 00       int H(ptr p, ptr i); >>>>>>> 01       int D(ptr p) >>>>>>> 02       { >>>>>>> 03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p); >>>>>>> 04         if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>> 06         return Halt_Status; >>>>>>> 07       } >>>>>>> 08 >>>>>>> 09       int main() >>>>>>> 10       { >>>>>>> 11         H(D,D); >>>>>>> 12         return 0; >>>>>>> 13       } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is >>>>>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many >>>>>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D >>>>>>> pair >>>>>>> was being referred to. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined* >>>>>>>     This is provided because every reviewer had a different >>>>>>> notion of >>>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates at >>>>>>> least one >>>>>>>     of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 >>>>>>>     instructions of D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>     This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of >>>>>>> H in >>>>>>>     the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling >>>>>>> H(D,D) >>>>>>>     in recursive simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Execution Trace* >>>>>>>     Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, >>>>>>> 02, and 03 >>>>>>>     of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless >>>>>>>     recursive simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> By your definiton of "Correct Simulation", you do realize that you >>>>>> have broken connection between the simulaiton not completing and >>>>>> the program described by the input not halting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, you do realize that by your requirement on H just being a >>>>>> "pure function" that does NOT say that you H qualified to be the >>>>>> computational equivalent for a Turing Machine? >>>>>> >>>>>> That due to your "strange" definition of what D is, you are >>>>>> putting yourself outside of the grounds of "Computation Theory", >>>>>> as that deals with the behavior of specific PROGRAMS, and not the >>>>>> "Program Templates" like your D, our the "Infinite set of H/D pairs"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, your "templagte D" is NOT built per either the Linz or >>>>>> Sipser rules, as both of those had D built with a COPY of H, which >>>>>> is one of your problems with a "Pure Function" as the equivelent. >>>>>> You have shown that your H fails to meet the requirements of a >>>>>> Turing Machine equivalent, as you can't (or it seems you can't) >>>>>> make equivalent copies, where all copies always give the same >>>>>> answer for the same inputs. This is a fundamental property of >>>>>> Turing Machines, which is why just bing a "Pure Function" isn't >>>>>> good enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> These issus need to be handled or acknowledged, before agreement >>>>>> on your question, as you have shown a history of taking a >>>>>> statement and twisting it (perhaps not intentionally, but because >>>>>> you don't understand what was being communicated) so we need to >>>>>> have a firm understand of what you mean and evidence that you >>>>>> accept the limititation causes by your altered definitions from >>>>>> the problem that you initially claimed to have started on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, it also means that even if/when you get your agreement, >>>>>> you are no closer to your halting proof, as you have shown that >>>>>> you undestand that you conditions actually tell you NOTHING about >>>>>> the actual behavior of halting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If olcott wants to be closer to the Linz or Sipser rules, he could >>>>> do so with a small modification: use different names for H. Use H1 >>>>> when called by main and use H2 when called by D. H1 and H2 are not >>>>> required to be exact copies of each other, but only to be >>>>> functionally equivalent. By doing so, a lot of useless discussions >>>>> could be avoided. >>>> >>>> *That violates this* >>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a >>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own >>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of >>>> what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >>>> >>> >>> Nope, D, that pathological program, is supposed to be built with its >>> own COPY of the decider, since to BE a program, it needs a complete >>> source set. >>> >> >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE >> > > Nope, part of confirmnig your requriements. ITS NOT IN THE SPEC THEREFORE ITS WRONG -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer