Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:06:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <ut267k$2e06s$4@dont-email.me>
References: <ut1sgk$2buev$2@dont-email.me> <ut1v81$2cfjp$3@dont-email.me>
 <ut2067$2c29l$19@dont-email.me> <ut238g$1vtvi$4@i2pn2.org>
 <ut2465$2djbv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:06:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="628c0b780d2c261756f82ddadd066eb3";
	logging-data="2556124"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18dYrn7RbvtIyX6GZBxz/P4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aZ2ZeOxcvxP2cjui4N3oI0mcaRo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ut2465$2djbv$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5765

On 3/15/2024 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/15/2024 1:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/15/24 10:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/15/2024 12:07 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 15/03/24 17:20, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Best selling author of Theory of Computation textbooks:
>>>>> *Introduction To The Theory Of Computation 3RD, by sipser*
>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Sipser/dp/8131525295/
>>>>>
>>>>> Date 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM
>>>>> *MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is 
>>>>> correct*
>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper)
>>>>> (a) 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
>>>>> (b) H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D 
>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>
>>>>> *When we apply the abort criteria* (elaborated above)
>>>>> Will you halt if you never abort your simulation?
>>>>> *Then H(D,D) is proven to meet this criteria*
>>>>>
>>>>> *Proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria*
>>>>>
>>>>> int D(int (*x)())
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H(D,D));
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>> [00001d22][00102fc9][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; begin main()
>>>>> [00001d23][00102fc9][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001d25][00102fc5][00001cf2] 68f21c0000 push 00001cf2 ; push DD
>>>>> [00001d2a][00102fc1][00001cf2] 68f21c0000 push 00001cf2 ; push D
>>>>> [00001d2f][00102fbd][00001d34] e8eef7ffff call 00001522 ; call H(D,D)
>>>>>
>>>>> H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
>>>>> Address_of_H:1522
>>>>> [00001cf2][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp       ; enter D(D)
>>>>> [00001cf3][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [00001cf5][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
>>>>> [00001cf6][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001cf9][00113059][00001cf2] 50         push eax       ; push D
>>>>> [00001cfa][00113059][00001cf2] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [00001cfd][00113055][00001cf2] 51         push ecx       ; push D
>>>>> [00001cfe][00113051][00001d03] e81ff8ffff call 00001522  ; call H(D,D)
>>>>> H: Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>                            H(D,D) returns 0 to main()
>>>>>
>>>>> *That was proof that H(D,D) meets its abort criteria*
>>>>> H(D,D) correctly determines that itself is being called with its 
>>>>> same inputs and there are no conditional branch instructions 
>>>>> between the invocation of D(D) and its call to H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are conditional branch instructions inside H(D,D). This is 
>>>> obvious. Why do you keep lying?
>>>
>>> (a) 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
>>>
>>> It is true that D(D) would never stop running unless the
>>> outermost H(D,D) aborts its simulation thus meeting the
>>> above criteria.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, not if D is claimed to be the equivalent of Linz H^.
>>
>> If you are willing to DISAVOW any posssible conntection to that we can 
>> discuss that version, but then you are admitting this is just a time 
>> wasting change of topic.
>>
>> The issue becomes a definition of identity.
>>
>> IF we are in an equivalency to Linz H/H^, then the H that D calls is a 
>> seperate identity to the H that is simulating that D.
>>
>> Thus, the outer H doesn't NEED to abort, 
> 
> (a) 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
> 
> That is incorrect yet too difficult for you to understand
> that it is incorrect until after you first understand that
> D(D,D)==0 is correct for the above criteria.
> 

Typo I meant H(D,D).


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer