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 13:33:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 263
Message-ID: <v0m4ot$16k3h$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <v0lllg$135k7$1@dont-email.me> <v0m1bh$2gl1f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m2jd$166o1$2@dont-email.me> <v0m4bd$2gl1e$3@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 20:33:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1265777"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NA74f30APi6FcHV2654pC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0jf8BhJt9RTcf4iHLJc0XdvfbOo=
In-Reply-To: <v0m4bd$2gl1e$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11603

On 4/28/2024 1:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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"
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========