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: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD) STEP(1) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 08:52:32 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:52:33 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6820c6f88a6ab7f47362bcc86c8cb3a"; logging-data="523583"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18o1KAlO/Ns4nHF2LOOJ+s2" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:dVesXehpnLiLZdWa5+29sCEs3Ig= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 5548 On 6/10/2024 2:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 10.jun.2024 om 07:17 schreef olcott: >> On 6/9/2024 1:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >>>> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed >>>> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria >>>> have been met: >>>> >>>> >>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>> stop running unless aborted then >>>> >>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >>>> >>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever >>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH. >>> >>> Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are asking >>> a question that contradicts itself. >>> A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up to >>> the point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically >>> impossible. So, either it is a correct simulation and then we see >>> that the simulated HH aborts and returns, or the simulation is >>> incorrect, because it assumes incorrectly that things that happen >>> (abort) do not happen. >>> A premature conclusion. >>> >>> >> >> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >> >> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> >> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >> >> _D() >> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp >> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp >> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08] >> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D >> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D >> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H >> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08 >> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax >> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17 >> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax >> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c >> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001 >> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp >> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret >> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] >> >> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >> >> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D. >> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D. >> >> > On 05.jun.2024 at 15:59 (CET) olcott proved that in the example > > > int main() > > { > >    Output("Input_Halts = ", HH(main,(ptr)0)); > > } > > main halts and HH reported a non-halting behaviour. This means that when > HH is used as a test for halting, it produces a false negative. > I just proved that D correctly simulated by H has different behavior than the directly executed D(D) and you ignored it. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer