Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD INcorrectly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2 ---woefully mistaken emulation
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:35:40 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2959ca30e9aea4d08e402231007c708b5e11ec61@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <8a6e6d9ff49aabe2525ce5729a439c807de4768a@i2pn2.org>
 <34Ocnd4voeWlDAn7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v725d7$hlvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <aa7643b6d8c46d2c4dd5ef92ae3650afe114adbb@i2pn2.org>
 <v734ct$mjis$2@dont-email.me>
 <056325e336f81a50f4fb9e60f90934eaac823d22@i2pn2.org>
 <v73gk2$obtd$1@dont-email.me>
 <e2958e7ea04d53590c79b53bfb4bc9dff468772b@i2pn2.org>
 <v742r2$s48s$2@dont-email.me>
 <210383b2ee318f68a96d94aec314ee8b93f79b7f@i2pn2.org>
 <v75u22$19j7l$4@dont-email.me>
 <fde630817c49562bc765bdbc98e16a1582bcad53@i2pn2.org>
 <v78mda$1smtm$2@dont-email.me> <v7d5cl$2t3ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ds0o$30pvh$3@dont-email.me> <v7fs29$3f4g7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gd17$3hlc2$2@dont-email.me> <v7ikn4$1jv5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j2pg$3o7r$3@dont-email.me> <v7l3di$idv1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lnrf$luh0$1@dont-email.me> <v7niqp$13ghd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7obbn$17h8r$1@dont-email.me>
 <2eecnR6fa9XiWzz7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:35:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="358775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7tlin$2acgd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 18775
Lines: 424

On 7/25/24 9:56 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/24/2024 10:29 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 23/07/2024 14:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/23/2024 1:32 AM, 0 wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-22 13:46:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/22/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-21 13:34:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/21/2024 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:11:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/20/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:08:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we use your incorrect reasoning we would conclude
>>>>>>>>>>> that Infinite_Loop() is not an infinite loop because it
>>>>>>>>>>> only repeats until aborted and is aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You and your HHH can reason or at least conclude correctly about
>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop but not about DDD. Possibly because it prefers to
>>>>>>>>>> say "no", which is correct about Infinte_loop but not about DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Because this is true I don't understand how you are not simply 
>>>>>>>>> lying*
>>>>>>>>> int main
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    DDD();
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Calls HHH(DDD) that must abort the emulation of its input
>>>>>>>>> or {HHH, emulated DDD and executed DDD} never stop running.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the lying one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If HHH(DDD) abrots its simulation and returns true it is correct 
>>>>>>>> as a
>>>>>>>> halt decider for DDD really halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (b) We know that a decider is not allowed to report on the behavior
>>>>>>> computation that itself is contained within.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we don't. There is no such prohibition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Turing machines never take actual Turing machines as inputs.
>>>>> They only take finite strings as inputs and an actual executing
>>>>> Turing machine is not itself a finite string.
>>>>
>>>> The definition of a Turing machine does not say that a Turing machine
>>>> is not a finite string. It is an abstract mathematical object without
>>>> a specification of its exact nature. It could be a set or a finite
>>>> string. Its exact nature is not relevant to the theory of computation,
>>>> which only cares about certain properties of Turing machines.
>>>>
>>>>> Therefore It is not allowed to report on its own behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, that does not follow. The theory of Turing machines does not
>>>> prohibit anything.
>>>>
>>>>> Another different TM can take the TM description of this
>>>>> machine and thus accurately report on its actual behavior.
>>>>
>>>> If a Turing machine can take a description of a TM as its input
>>>> or as a part of its input it can also take its own description.
>>>> Every Turing machine can be given its own description as input
>>>> but a Turing machine may interprete it as something else.
>>>>
>>> In this case we have two x86utm machines that are identical
>>> except that DDD calls HHH and DDD does not call HHH1.
>>>
>>> It is empirically proven that this changes their behavior
>>> and the behavior of DDD.
>>>
>>
>> You say a lot about things that are "empirically proven" and without 
>> exception they are never "proven" at all.
>>
> 
> It is empirically proven according to the semantics of the
> x86 machine code of DDD that DDD correctly emulated by HHH
> has different behavior than DDD correctly emulated by HHH1.

No, it hasn't.

It has been shown that HHH doesn't "correctly emulate" its input if it 
aborts its emulation (which it needs to do to be a decider).

You have just been proving you don't understand what a "Correct 
Emulation" means

The correct emulation of a "Call" instruction needs to be followed by 
the emulation of the instructions in the subroutine that was called.

Anything else is just a LIE.


> 
> _DDD()
> [00002177] 55         push ebp
> [00002178] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a] 6877210000 push 00002177
> [0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d7
> [00002184] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002187] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002188] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]
> 
> _main()
> [00002197] 55         push ebp
> [00002198] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000219a] 6877210000 push 00002177
> [0000219f] e863f3ffff call 00001507
> [000021a4] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [000021a7] 33c0       xor eax,eax
> [000021a9] 5d         pop ebp
> [000021aa] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0020) [000021aa]
> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00002197][001037fb][00000000] 55         push ebp
> [00002198][001037fb][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000219a][001037f7][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000219f][001037f3][000021a4] e863f3ffff call 00001507 ; call HHH1
> New slave_stack at:10389f

And thus, your emulation is just INCORRECT.

> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138a7
> [00002177][00113897][0011389b] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][00113897][0011389b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][00113893][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][0011388f][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> New slave_stack at:14e2c7

And again INCORRECT.

> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:15e2cf
> [00002177][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][0015e2bf][0015e2c3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][0015e2bb][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][0015e2b7][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> New slave_stack at:198cef

And once more incorrect

> [00002177][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 55         push ebp
> [00002178][001a8ce7][001a8ceb] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> [0000217a][001a8ce3][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
> [0000217f][001a8cdf][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========