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: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 22:20:45 -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: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:20:45 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1191319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6056 Lines: 135 On 6/25/24 10:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/25/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 7:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 24.jun.2024 om 23:04 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:36 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:48:19 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/24/2024 2:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-23 13:17:27 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2024 3:22 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That code is not from the mentined trace file. In that file >>>>>>>>>> _DDD() >>>>>>>>>> is at the addresses 2093..20a4. According to the trace no >>>>>>>>>> instruction >>>>>>>>>> at the address is executed (because that address points to the >>>>>>>>>> last >>>>>>>>>> byte of a three byte instruction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In order to make my examples I must edit the code and this >>>>>>>>> changes the >>>>>>>>> addresses of some functions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you need to make an example when you already have one in the >>>>>>>> file mentioned in the subject line? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I had to make a few more examples such as HH1(DD,DD) >>>>>> AFACT HH1 is the same as HH0, right? What happens when HH1 tries to >>>>>> simulate a function DD1 that only calls HH1? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> typedef uint32_t u32; >>>>> u32 H(u32 P, u32 I); >>>>> >>>>> int P(u32 x) >>>>> { >>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x); >>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>    H(P,P); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> I am going to have to go through my code and standardize my names. >>>>> H(P,P) was the original name. Then I had to make a one parameter >>>>> version, a version that is identical to H, except P does not call >>>>> it and then versions using different algorithms. People have never >>>>> been able to understand the different algorithm. >>>>> >>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>> typedef int (*ptr2)(); >>>>> int  HH(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH >>>>> int HH1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls HH >>>>> int  HHH(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH >>>>> int HHH1(ptr P);         // used with void DDD() that calls HHH >>>>> >>>>> *The different algorithm version has been deprecated* >>>>> int  H(ptr2 , ptr2 I);  // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H >>>>> int H1(ptr2 P, ptr2 I); // used with int D(ptr2 P) that calls H >>>>> >>>>> *It is much easier for people to see the infinite recursion* >>>>> *behavior pattern when they see it actually cycle through the* >>>>> *same instructions twice* >>>> >>>> Twice is not equal to infinitely. When will you see that? >>>> It is strange that you call that an infinite recursion, when H >>>> aborts after two cycles and the simulated H cannot reach its own >>>> abort operation, because it is aborted when it had only one more >>>> cycle to go. >>>> None of the aborted simulations would cycle more than twice, so >>>> infinite recursion is not seen for an H that aborts the simulation >>>> of itself. >>> >>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>> int H0(ptr P); >>> >>> void DDD() >>> { >>>    H0(DDD); >>> } >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>>    H0(DDD); >>> } >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD >>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04 >>> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp >>> [00002183] c3               ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >> In the section thaty was correctly simulated. >> >> It can return after that point. >> >> Aborted simulations do NOT stop the behavior represented by the input. >> > > I am not even talking about termination analyzers. > Please do not deceptively twist my words. The entire > universe of discourse is DDD correctly simulated by H0. Which isn't a valid property\, since it is subjective. The behavior of "the input" needs to be an OBJECTIVE property. And if you are say we need to ignore what you have said in the past, then h0 just neded to begin as: int H0(ptr x) { static int flag = 0; if (flag) return 0; flag = 1; .... and it can do the simulation. It seems you are incapable of learning. > > I am beginning to think that you lack sufficient technical > competence. That is much better for you than lying. > No, you are just incompetent.