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 13:34:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0m1bh$2gl1f$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0lkpi$2g492$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lllg$135k7$1@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 17:34:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2642991"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v0lllg$135k7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11796
Lines: 278

On 4/28/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========