Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 17:28:32 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 288
Message-ID: <v0miig$19rb3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$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>
 <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>
 <v0m6o5$172p4$5@dont-email.me> <v0m83f$2gl1f$8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 00:28:33 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73fb146966bd3083c21813597b100895";
	logging-data="1371491"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uL00lAaTP+I1LPdBPxlCc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wkX0J8WLoAsXv5P8o7hSqK3PMVM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v0m83f$2gl1f$8@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 13862

On 4/28/2024 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/28/24 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========