Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 15:27:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 259
Message-ID: <v1lvuo$1i47i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me>
 <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me> <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 22:27:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c0c43cbc173c29c782eabc90f798410";
	logging-data="1642738"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nPJ1gZZ+VXxHVQ+3lFEhn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hVeOgRDsn3iA1KFE6G3RMwlyG+o=
In-Reply-To: <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12614

On 5/10/2024 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/10/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2024 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine code of its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matches a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input will never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the H that this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which set of pairs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't mean anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps of D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "In the universe" is not a set. In typical set 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories like ZFC there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no universal set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/D pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated steps of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulations of H simulating itself simulating D(D). 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every time Lines 1,2,3 are simulated again defines
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one more level of recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step  of D  is simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of many more simulations that only these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pairs where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D(D) reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches its line
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches that line
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>>>>>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am 
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>>>>>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is 
>>>>>>>>>>> allows HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested 
>>>>>>>>>>> (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely 
>>>>>>>>>>> differently to the outer HH - I mean /completely/ 
>>>>>>>>>>> differently: it goes through a totally separate "I am called 
>>>>>>>>>>> in nested mode" code path!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to 
>>>>>>>>>> be to
>>>>>>>>>> be a computable function.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler 
>>>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H 
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here's the proof:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to 
>>>>>>>>> the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========