Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct simulating halt decider
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 19:40:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0408be511df97a4e0a76780d68a036602781376a@i2pn2.org>
References: <vb4plc$2tqeg$1@dont-email.me> <vb6o5t$3a95s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb71a3$3b4ub$4@dont-email.me> <vbbmuc$8nbb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbcbe4$bdtb$3@dont-email.me>
 <cb6a625f1737dafed130e2bdad14395d95566ba1@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcl61$d8p0$1@dont-email.me>
 <e097e72a4319eb72e8663d055aa54d69af610831@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcnjk$dr54$1@dont-email.me>
 <5d7b0659450f58aec28d4f49b1b59982cedfc694@i2pn2.org>
 <vbcp2d$e330$1@dont-email.me>
 <70a0b7e4bd0a0129649d8e77cdc36339bd74d6a5@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhl0e$1c7u5$6@dont-email.me>
 <4478821a37cfd3f24201caee13e8eb0abfe09c9c@i2pn2.org>
 <vbhpeq$1djl5$1@dont-email.me> <vbjst0$1sml7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbkbju$1uqfp$1@dont-email.me> <vbml5m$2ce7j$2@dont-email.me>
 <vbngbm$2gv88$1@dont-email.me> <vbpbgt$2ucj0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbrvb0$3im2p$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 23:40:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1715711"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vbrvb0$3im2p$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5943
Lines: 102

On 9/11/24 7:36 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/10/2024 6:45 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.sep.2024 om 20:55 schreef olcott:
>>> On 9/9/2024 6:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 08.sep.2024 om 16:16 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 9/8/2024 5:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 07.sep.2024 om 16:54 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2024 9:46 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 07 Sep 2024 08:38:22 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 12:22 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:17:01 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:52:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 11:34 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 11:10:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:24:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/2024 2:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:00:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2024 5:25 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-09-02 16:38:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH correctly determines that its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be aborted because DDD keeps *THE EMULATED HHH* stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why doesn’t the simulated HHH abort?
>>>>>>>>>>> The first HHH cannot wait for its HHH to abort which is 
>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for
>>>>>>>>>>> its HHH to abort on and on with no HHH ever aborting.
>>>>>>>>>> But why does HHH halt and return that itself doesn’t halt?
>>>>>>>>> When HHH is waiting for the next HHH which is waiting for the 
>>>>>>>>> next HHH
>>>>>>>>> which is waiting for the next HHH...
>>>>>>>>> we have an infinite chain of waiting and never aborting.
>>>>>>>> Except for the outermost one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When the outermost HHH is waiting for its emulated HHH
>>>>>>> to abort and this emulated HHH is waiting on its emulated
>>>>>>> HHH to abort on and on forever waiting and none ever abort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dreaming again of a HHH that does not abort.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words you have no idea what a hypothesis is?
>>>>
>>>> I do, but olcott thinks a dream is sufficient to prove a hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The outermost HHH can either abort it emulation of DDD
>>>>> or not and either way DDD cannot possibly reach its final
>>>>> halt state of its "return" instruction and halt.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly, so either way the simulation fails to reach the end.
>>>> HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly up to the end.
>>>
>>> Thus must be aborted and is necessarily correct to report non-halting.
>>>
>>>
>> Claim without evidence. 
> 
> _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]
> 
> DDD emulated by the directly executed HHH derives these steps:
> 00002172, 00002173, 00002175, 0000217a
> The last of these steps calld HHH(DDD)
> 
> HHH emulated by the directly executed HHH cannot possibly derive
> any other steps and I have proved this by the actual execution trace
> by a world class x86 emulator libx86emu.

But we aren't asking about the emulation done by the HHH that the outer 
HHH is emulating, but the behavior of the program DDD that it is 
emulating, and thus the steps that the emulated HHH DOES (not the 
results of its emulation)

> 
> https://www.liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD).pdf
> 
> Here is the complete sourcecode of HHH and DDD
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

Which shows that HHH is NOT a pure function, and thus can't be a decider.

Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.

> 
> The only only possible rebuttals to this are nonsense
> gibberish or baseless claims.
> 

Nope, your claims are just shown to be baseless nonsense gibberish.

Sorry, but you are just proving your stupidity.