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: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 INcorrectly
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 21:21:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c8ef74932fb75f21827ff980bf18eaa1485d4443@i2pn2.org>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:21:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="931475"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4599
Lines: 70

On 7/30/24 4:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
>>>>>>> behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
>>>>>> say what pattern the see. 
>>>>>
>>>>> *Its all in the part that you erased*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
>>>>> *THREE lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
>>>>> [0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>>>> [0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
>>>>> *FOUR lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
>>>>> [00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>>>> [00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>>>> [00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>>>> [0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We all see the differences between these two. 
>>>
>>> They both correctly predict behavior that must be aborted to
>>> prevent the infinite execution of the simulating halt decider.
>>>
>>
>> Except that the prediction for the second one is wrong. The simulation 
>> of an aborting and halting function, like HHH, does not need to be 
>> aborted. 
> 
> I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out
> then it keeps repeating again and again, thus conclusively
> proving that is must be aborted or HHH never halts.

But that changes the input program, so is an INVALID transform.

> 
>> This is proved when it is simulate by HHH1. HHH aborts after two 
>> recursions, which is not an infinite execution.
>>
>> We know you really, really wants it to be correct. So, you are 
>> cheating by suppressing part of the trace, in order to hide the 
>> conditional branch instructions in the second case. But no matter how 
>> much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats 
>> that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation 
>> is incorrect
>