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 15:14:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v0m776$2gl1f$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v0k4jc$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> <v0m1bh$2gl1f$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m2jd$166o1$2@dont-email.me> <v0m4bd$2gl1e$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m4ot$16k3h$4@dont-email.me> <v0m5dr$2gl1e$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m6d1$172p4$4@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 19:14:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2642991"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v0m6d1$172p4$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 13578
Lines: 289

On 4/28/24 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2024 1:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/28/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========