Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 19:13:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <101at6j$4bga$2@dont-email.me>
References: <1019v06$3u8nj$1@dont-email.me>
 <ttScnahk68Gsa6X1nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 02:13:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73dc11aa65be162e0b0150944dd1d14a";
	logging-data="142858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2r3gLvZxLnU50wgkzkgoz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BGPn4Bx8sQTRz/PJVNsiL4rvlKI=
In-Reply-To: <ttScnahk68Gsa6X1nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250529-4, 5/29/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/29/2025 7:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 05/29/2025 08:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>> HHH is a simulating termination analyzer that uses
>> an x86 emulator to emulate its input. HHH is capable
>> of emulating itself emulating DDD.
>>
>> HHH is executed within the x86utm operating system
>> that enables any C function to execute another C
>> function in debug step mode.
>>
>> *Here is the fully operational code*
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      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
>>
>> It is a tautology that any input D to termination
>> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted*
>> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR.
>>
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D
>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>>
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> (Was, "disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect".)
> 
> It's the _deductive_ analysis that makes for the
> "analytical bridges" to escape an "inductive impasse".
> 

If by inductive impasse you are referring to mathematical
induction you might be right. If you are referring to logical
induction then you are wrong.

So far I have not been able to make a proof by mathematical
induction that I am correct.

The closest that I got is that for any value of N when
N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH the emulated
DDD never reaches its own "ret" instruction final halt state.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer