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: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:33:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7b154ee58a6a35bd37e58c4468d6b62753173eb2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me> <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ftsp$3uffi$1@dont-email.me> <v9g0im$3u3of$5@dont-email.me>
 <v9g22t$3uffi$3@dont-email.me> <v9g6rb$cql$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9g7d3$gmc$1@dont-email.me> <v9gaup$17ve$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9gbl8$1i21$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 02:33:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2494910"; 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: <v9gbl8$1i21$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5175
Lines: 98

On 8/13/24 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 2:08 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 12:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 18:36 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/13/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We prove that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being 
>>>>>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is 
>>>>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
>>>>>>>>>>> string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the 
>>>>>>>>>> proof is
>>>>>>>>>> not interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked 
>>>>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>>>> is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) 
>>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Contradiction in terminus.
>>>>>>>> A correct simulation is not possible. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
>>>>>>> the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't get that you cannot stipulate that something is correct. 
>>>>>
>>>>> It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
>>>>> an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't agree to that anything else that you say is moot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is objectively incorrect to say that a simulation is correct when 
>>>> it only simulated the first N instructions correctly.
>>>
>>> It is objectively correct to say that the first N instructions
>>> were emulated correctly when the first N instructions were
>>> emulated correctly.
>>>
>>> Changing my words then providing a rebuttal for these changed
>>> words is a form of intentional deceit known as strawman.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> *You* are changing words.
>> A few lines above *you* said:
>>  >>>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
>>  >>>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>
> 
> It is cheating to provide a rebuttal to the words that I
> actually said right now based on any other words that I
> said anywhere else.
> 
> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

No, it is only "a correct emulation of the first N instructions of DDD", 
not a "correct emulation of DDD" which must continue to the end by the 
sematics of the x86 language, which doesn't define spontaneous halting.

> 
> If you diverge the slightest trace from those words you
> are cheating.
>