Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? POE Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 07:25:25 -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, 29 Apr 2024 11:25:25 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2721726"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 17023 Lines: 374 On 4/29/24 12:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 4/28/24 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========