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: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:15:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7f91c1a43d85d6e6ea261d729f516de30d5f2b9a@i2pn2.org>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8ibf5$2p7ho$1@dont-email.me>
 <s3CdnbweXt8ohDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <a287d1fc2c1fc90d4381e46eae05287b96e801b9@i2pn2.org>
 <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v8jmvr$31nt0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 23:15:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1215790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8jmvr$31nt0$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 16436
Lines: 322

On 8/2/24 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/2/2024 5:23 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 02/08/2024 19:25, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/2/24 1:39 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 02/08/2024 11:12, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-01 13:29:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of just DDD assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator that does not abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination 
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzers:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that D
>>>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an 
>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>>>>> language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting 
>>>>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>> second line. I switched to DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But it has been proven that no such HHH exists that simulates 
>>>>>>>>> itself correctly. So, talking about a correct simulation by HHH 
>>>>>>>>> is vacuous word salad.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> because only C experts understood the above example and we
>>>>>>>>>> never had any of those here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are many C experts that looked at it, but you only got 
>>>>>>>>> critic, because you keep hiding important properties of HHH, 
>>>>>>>>> which made the conclusion impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following is all that is needed for 100% complete proof
>>>>>>>> that HHH did emulate DDD correctly according to the semantics
>>>>>>>> of the x86 language and did emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>> according to these same semantics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are repeating the same false claim with out any self- 
>>>>>>> reflection. It has been pointed out that there are many errors in 
>>>>>>> this proof.
>>>>>>> Why repeating such errors?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored 
>>>>>>>> at:1138cc
>>>>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; 
>>>>>>>> housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 
>>>>>>>> housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
>>>>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the 
>>>>>>> recursion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here is the full trace where nothing is hidden*
>>>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> On page 36 of that "trace"
>>>>>     [0000128c][0010379f][00000018] e8e6f4ffff call 00000777
>>>>> is not followed by the trace of 00000777. Instead the trace continues
>>>>> with the next instruction after the return without any comment about
>>>>> the omission. Meaning of 00000777 is not told.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 777 is the address of Allocate, which is one of PO's "primative ops" 
>>>> within his "computing model". (Similar to his DebugStep().)
>>>>
>>>> It is implemented inside x86utm.exe (his COFF obj code runner), not 
>>>> in the user code DDD/HHH/etc. in the obj file, and so we would not 
>>>> expect to see any trace entries for its internals.  When the op 
>>>> concludes, rax has the address of the allocated memory, which is 
>>>> consistent with how a normal function would have returned the address.
>>>>
>>>> You can say correctly that PO has not explained this, but then he 
>>>> provided the full trace under protest, so it's understandable that 
>>>> he has not previously explained everything in it.  I'm surprised 
>>>> that his response to your post was both to ignore the question and 
>>>> accuse you of playing sadistic head games, as the question was 
>>>> perfectly sensible.
>>>>
>>>> You can look up the 777 address in the listing at the start of the 
>>>> trace and it's there along with a bunch of other routines which 
>>>> appear to just return without doing anything - those are all PO's 
>>>> primitive ops.  If you feel a need to understand exactly what they 
>>>> do, you'll need to check his source code!  (Although for Allocate 
>>>> there is no big surprise...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So your observation isn't really a problem beyond not being properly 
>>>> explained.  An actual problem seen in his trace data is that the 
>>>> simulation of DDD does not track the behaviour of the unsimulated 
>>>> DDD. I.e. his simulation is incorrect.  (PO knows about that but 
>>>> claims it doesn't matter, although on other occasions he still 
>>>> claims the simulation is correct.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========