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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:00:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0lkpi$2g492$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me> <v0li19$2g492$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ljuk$12q0o$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:00:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2625826"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0ljuk$12q0o$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 9961
Lines: 239

On 4/28/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> YOU are the only one that says they are "Manditory".
>>
>> That doesn't make them so for me.
>>
>> YOU refuse to explain how a Halting Turing Machine can be correctly 
>> decider as "Non-Halting".
>>
>> Your "excuses" all seem to boil down to you just need to lie about 
>> what you are actually doing and that you refuse to even learn what the 
>> actual rules and language of what you are saying you are doing are.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========