Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 22:45:53 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 174 Message-ID: <v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$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$12@i2pn2.org> <v0kcio$qqsq$1@dont-email.me> <v0kftr$2djof$6@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 05:45:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236"; logging-data="902651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hiKMbaheemKAa59H5ld85" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:G4iixDNCYnTlBHo8EweGBDTztHo= In-Reply-To: <v0kftr$2djof$6@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7196 On 4/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. > > So, How is H(D,D) saying false correct if D(D) Halts? > You refuse to go through the mandatory steps. > SInce the DEFINITION of the quesiton that H, the Halt Decider, is to > answer is if the computation describe by its input (that is D(D) ) will > halt when run. > > You have to hide behind obfuscation, blusgter and LIES. > > Since you don't seem to know that actual meaning of the words you use, > as you have even occationally admitted, it is clear who knows what they > are talking about and who doesn't. > > I will also point out that you have effectively admitted that your > statements are unsopported as you always fail to provide actual > references to accepted ground for your claims. > > > > >> >>>> >>>> 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 > > So, you don't understand what the principle of explosion actually is. > Some A are True No A are True therefore B It is categorically impossible to show: (a) How the above two categorical propositions entail B (b) That the above two categorical propositions are not isomorphic to POE. You are simply indoctrinated at your core. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer