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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as
 non-halting V2
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 09:15:17 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <73002e2c01a3e0e25970368972b0cbd63b2259eb@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6rg65$32o1o$3@dont-email.me>
 <97e0632d0d889d141bdc6005ce6e513c53867798@i2pn2.org>
 <v6sdlu$382g0$1@dont-email.me> <v6td3a$3ge79$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tp1j$3imib$2@dont-email.me> <v6trdu$3irhh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 13:15:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3137774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6tu01$3imib$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6769
Lines: 126

On 7/13/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/13/2024 7:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.jul.2024 om 13:39 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.jul.2024 om 01:19 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means the only "correct emulation" that tells the behavior 
>>>>>> of the program at the input is a non-aborted one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according to the
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language then N steps are emulated correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus HHH that do that know only the first N steps of the 
>>>>>> behavior of DDD, which continues per the definition of the x86 
>>>>>> instruction set until the COMPLETE emulation (or direct execution) 
>>>>>> reaches a terminal instruction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we examine the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair such that:
>>>>>>> HHH₁ one step of DDD is correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>> HHH₂ two steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>> HHH₃ three steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> HHH∞ The emulation of DDD by HHH never stops running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thus, the subset that only did a finite number of steps and 
>>>>>> aborted its emulation on a non-terminal instrucition only have 
>>>>>> partial knowledge of the behavior of their DDD, and by returning 
>>>>>> to their caller, they establish that behavior for ALL copies of 
>>>>>> that HHH, even the one that DDD calls, which shows that DDD will 
>>>>>> be halting, even though HHH stopped its observation of the input 
>>>>>> before it gets to that point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above specifies the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair
>>>>>>> where 1 to infinity steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its
>>>>>>> own machine address of 0000216b and halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. EVERY DDD of an HHH that simulated its input for only a 
>>>>>> finite number of steps WILL halt becuase it will reach its final 
>>>>>> return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HHH that simulated it for only a finite number of steps, only 
>>>>>> learned that finite number of steps of the behaivor, and in EVERY 
>>>>>> case, when we look at the behavior past that point, which DOES 
>>>>>> occur per the definition of the x86 instruction set, as we have 
>>>>>> not reached a "termial" instruction that stops behavior, will see 
>>>>>> the HHH(DDD) that DDD called continuing to simulate its input to 
>>>>>> the point that this one was defined to stop, and then returns 0 to 
>>>>>> DDDD and then DDD returning and ending the behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You continue to stupidly confuse the PARTIAL observation that HHH 
>>>>>> does of the behavior of DDD by its PARTIAL emulation with the 
>>>>>> ACTUAL FULL behavior of DDD as defined by the full definition of 
>>>>>> the x86 insttuction set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus each HHH element of the above infinite set of HHH/DDD
>>>>>>> pairs is necessarily correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NONE Of them CORRECTLY rejected itS DDD as non-halting and you are 
>>>>>> shown to be ignorant of what you are talking about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The HHH that did a partial emulation got the wrong answer, because 
>>>>>> THEIR DDD will halt. and the HHH that doen't abort never get 
>>>>>> around to rejecting its DDD as non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here is the gist of my proof it is irrefutable*
>>>>> When no DDD of every HHH/DDD that can possibly exist
>>>>> halts then each HHH that rejects its DDD as non-halting
>>>>> is necessarily correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> *No double-talk and weasel words can overcome that*
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is double talk, because no HHH can possibly exist that 
>>>> simulates itself correctly.
>>>
>>> Your definition of correct contradicts the semantics of
>>> the x86 language making it wrong.
>>>
>>
>> You have a wrong understanding of the semantics of the x86 language. 
>> You think that the x86 language specifies that skipping instructions 
>> do not change the behaviour of a program.
> 
> You have the wrong understanding of a decider.
> All deciders are required to halt.

And are required to give the correct answer.

You seem to think it is ok for them to lie if they don't know the right 
answer.

> 
> As soon as the decider correctly determines that itself
> would never halt unless is aborts the simulation of its
> input the decider is required to abort this simulation.
> 

Which it never does, so it gives up and guesses.

YOU lie that it does correctly determines the answer, but that is 
because you lie and don't look at the input that this decider actually 
has, but look at the input that would have been given to a different 
decider to show that one wrong.