Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:25:05 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 164 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: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:25:06 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3ceb905fd6a8594bcad71e2b037dd84d"; logging-data="1942100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WyH4EV28HQLEB15rxea7K" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:iD83Zq1wd2crlKOJZFkot9bGWzk= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8683 Op 16.aug.2024 om 22:36 schreef olcott: > 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. > Again the same joke. We have proven it incorrect already so many times. > > *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to* > *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop* > *running unless aborted* And the simulation that failed to reach the end of an aborting and halting HHH is simply incorrect.