Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:36:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 168 Message-ID: References: <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:36:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da"; logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/boVDgulg/fn0idl5f4y+0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:eOje0FmD+7fu7BgYrGIDf9px9lw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8721 On 8/16/2024 3:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry: >>>>>>>>> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N >>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD, >>>>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss. >>>>>>>>>> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted >>>>>>>>>> simulation as >>>>>>>>>> correct. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is >>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient >>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller, >>>>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its >>>>>>>>>>> caller* >>>>>>>>>> how *HHH* returns >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix >>>>>>>>>>     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates >>>>>>>> DDD >>>>>>>>>>     second level >>>>>>>>>>       DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected >>>>>>>>>>     HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts >>>>>>>> voila >>>>>>>>>> HHH halts >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH >>>>>>>>> aborts its >>>>>>>>> simulation [line 5 above], >>>>>>>>> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation >>>>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical >>>>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort >>>>>>>> the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot >>>>>>> wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be >>>>>>> waiting forever. >>>>>> Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before >>>>>> the simulated HHH would abort and halt. >>>>> >>>>> Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong. >>>> >>>> For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct. >>>> >>> >>> *Fred has the same incorrect views as joes* >>> *Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong* >>> *when replying to joes* >>> >>> On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>  > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote: >>>  >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>  >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH >>>  >>>  returns to its caller*>> >>>  >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller) >>>  >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this. >>>  >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix >>>  >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated >>>  >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level >>>  >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected >>>  >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference >>>  >>    DDD halts        voila >>>  >> HHH halts >>>  > >>>  > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your >>>  > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above], >>>  > then the outer level H would have aborted its >>>  > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right? >>>  > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly >>>  > for the last few months! :) ] >>>  > >>>  > So your trace is impossible... >>>  > >>> >>> >> >> It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very >> short of memory.) >> I never said such a thing. >> I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated >> HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH >> reached it abort and halted. >> In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the >> abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is >> incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by >> HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt. >> >> It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or >> your memory is indeed very short. >> Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from >> rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately. > > That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't > "understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / mathematical > content.  He can't understand definitions or their role in proofs, or > the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being > rude or anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of > course* PO does not "really read what you write".  Surely you must have > at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice any problem > with PO's memory.] > I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics of the C programming. I can't ever get to the point of the computer science because reviewers disagree with these basic facts. void DDD() { HHH(DDD); } _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] 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. *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to* *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop* *running unless aborted* Mike might try to change the subject but I doubt if he would disagree with this basic fact. *It took me two years to find a way to define correct* *simulation such that all disagreement looks foolish* There are more steps to my proof in addition to this yet the above portion of my proof is a necessary prerequisite. If people disagree with arithmetic how are we ever going to get to the subject of algebra? -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer