Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03
Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 22:39:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <v14alr$10p7a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v12pgu$im12$1@dont-email.me> <v13uie$qlvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v149pv$c31$13@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 May 2024 05:39:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d5b94937ab75d91202558453b5391e6";
	logging-data="1074410"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Gef7sgxnW4/pE0dPhzu7a"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ICWvrz6LjeKTpCFxCK158LZJHsU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v149pv$c31$13@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5089

On 5/3/2024 10:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/3/24 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/3/2024 8:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 void main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> We are examining the behavior of D(D) for every possible H/D pair
>>> where 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H.
>>>
>>> *Execution Trace*
>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>> Line 01
>>> Line 02
>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>
>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> (a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
>>> 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
>>> cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>
>> I only had to add this new step because I found that some people just
>> do not understand that when the executed H(D,D) aborts its simulated
>> input that all of the nested simulations (if any) immediately totally 
>> stop running. No simulated H ever returns any value to any simulated D.
>> We can sum this up much more concisely with (a).
> 
> Fixing definitions is good.
> 
> The refutation of (a) that I gave didn't use that "loop hole" and both 
> of the examples actually simulated the steps to past line 3.
> 
> After all, how can you simulate past line 3 and not simulate any steps?
> 

THIS WAS THE DEFINITION THAT YOU RESPONDED TO
(a) It is a verified fact that *D(D) simulated by H* cannot
possibly reach past line 03 of *D(D) simulated by H* whether
H aborts its simulation or not.

You took *D(D) simulated by H* to mean *D(D) NEVER simulated by H*
That is a ridiculously stupid mistake.

You took *D(D) simulated by H* to mean *D(D) NEVER simulated by H*
That is a ridiculously stupid mistake.

You took *D(D) simulated by H* to mean *D(D) NEVER simulated by H*
That is a ridiculously stupid mistake.

You took *D(D) simulated by H* to mean *D(D) NEVER simulated by H*
That is a ridiculously stupid mistake.

> The no-simulation case was just showing that using your conclusion from 
> (a) and saying that H is correct to abort here, allows, with just as 
> valid of logic, to allow a decider to trivally decide to abort either 
> after 0, or with your modification, after 1 step, to just abort and say 
> it couldn't reach the end.
> 
>>
>>> (b) Rebuttals must show a counter example where 1 to N steps
>>> of D(D) are simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past
>>> its own line 03.
> 
> Was done.
> 
> You need to refute that example or you are just admitting you are a liar 
> that makes claims that have been disproven.
> 

No I am proving that one of your rebuttals was a ridiculously stupid
mistake. When you make a ridiculously stupid mistake that is not me
lying at all.

If you have a better rebuttal please provide it.

> The fact that you don't understand how it was disproven, the fact that 
> you know that the statements were made and you haven't refuted it, means 
> your claims have become unproven statements, and thus not valid to claim.
> 

*It was not me that made the ridiculously stupid mistake*

>>>
>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>> *Fully operational code implemented in the x86utm operating system*
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer