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: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:15:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 260
Message-ID: <v0lllg$135k7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0kgph$rhfr$1@dont-email.me> <v0li19$2g492$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0ljuk$12q0o$2@dont-email.me> <v0lkpi$2g492$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 16:15:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1152647"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DDJFK+s1OWjEzw65ePhyu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m9gmpMXnq8GPwxDVTTsobdx1QLc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0lkpi$2g492$6@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10814

On 4/28/2024 9:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========