Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 21:33:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <v0kcio$qqsq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0k6eo$2djoe$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v0k70f$lpet$1@dont-email.me> <v0k9co$2djoe$11@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ka8h$qb8e$1@dont-email.me> <v0kb4e$2djoe$12@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 04:34:00 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="879514"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX182iCDoR1Ae7suIa0lQkBEl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:heataiZyff1iL8yEWonZATtSB+U=
In-Reply-To: <v0kb4e$2djoe$12@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5785

On 4/27/2024 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/27/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/27/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator.
>>>>>> This system enables one C function to execute another C function
>>>>>> in debug step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process
>>>>>> context for D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H
>>>>>> is able to simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to
>>>>>> recursive simulations is RAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>>>> //
>>>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)    // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>>>>> 03
>>>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>> 05 {
>>>>>> 06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>> 07   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 08     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 09   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 10 }
>>>>>> 11
>>>>>> 12 void main()
>>>>>> 13 {
>>>>>> 14   D(D);
>>>>>> 15 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Execution Trace
>>>>>> Line 14: main() invokes D(D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>>>>> Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulation invariant
>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it dead obvious to everyone here when examining the execution
>>>>>> trace of lines 14 and 06 above that D correctly simulated by H cannot
>>>>>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own line 09?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that you fail to mention that you have admitted that you are 
>>>>> NOT working on the Halting Problem, despite trying to use 
>>>>> terminology similar to it, but having stipulated definition that 
>>>>> are in conflict with computaiton theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note, "keeps repeating (unless aborted)" is a misleading statement, 
>>>>> as your H will ALWAYS abort this input, and thus it NEVER will 
>>>>> "Keep repeating".
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't like me pointing out the problem because you prefer to be 
>>>>> able to LIE to people about what you are doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You work has NOTHING to do with Halting, as your H/D are not even 
>>>>> turing equivalenet to their namesakes in the proof you like to 
>>>>> mention.
>>>>
>>>> That is the exact verbatim post and the first respondent agreed
>>>> and immediately noticed that I was referring to the halting problem.
>>>>
>>>> So I will go with what I said, you just don't know C very
>>>> well and want to keep that hidden behind rhetoric and denigration.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, you couch it to SOUND like the halting problem, but it isn't as 
>>> you have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED the meaning of terms.
>>>
>>> And thus, to act like it is, just makes you a LIAR.
>>>
>>> Halting is NOT about H being able to simulate it input to the final 
>>> state. PERIOD.
>>>
>>
>> I could show how it is but you prefer to believe otherwise and refuse
>> to go through the detailed steps required.
> 
> No, you CAN'T, because you have FUNDAMENTALLY changed the question, sinc 
> eyou claim that even though D(D) Halts, that H(D,D) is correct to say 
> not halting.
> 

It is not my error it is your indoctrination.

>>
>> It is psychotic that people really believes that the principle of
>> explosion is valid inference even though there is zero doubt the it
>> derives the non-sequitur error.
> 
> Nope, that just means you don't understand how logic works.
> 
> YOU are the psychotic.
> 
>>
>> *When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism*
>> Socrates is a man.
>> Socrates is not a man.
>> Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.
> 
> Nope. And that is because the principle of explosion is NOT a "syllogism"
> 
> You are again just proving your stupidity.
> 
>>
>> The conclusion does not follow from the premises, thus the 
>> non-sequitur error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
> 
> So, which step doesn't is incorrect.
> 
> Givens:
> Proposition A is True.
> Proposition A is False.
> 

The syllogism would be dead right there.
Some A are True
No A are True

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition

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