Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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? POE
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:06:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 262
Message-ID: <v0m6o5$172p4$5@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m3t5$2gl1e$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m46m$16k3h$2@dont-email.me> <v0m5a9$2gl1e$4@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 21:06:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236";
	logging-data="1280804"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19m6koW6knIy+vipz1YhrpY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5/+kzF1D1sJBL6Ju8LrXZcnvqlM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0m5a9$2gl1e$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 12175

On 4/28/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/24 2:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/28/2024 1:18 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========