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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 13:43:30 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <v18k0j$20gbj$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v18f9e$5asq$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 20:43:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="541e9246f979204e7e622a92e4a7a032";
	logging-data="2113907"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197oU3i/dL85NdmRiDeAC90"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5rbR5opedf2tfHvhLOqOL1WOSZE=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v18f9e$5asq$4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4746

On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>> stop running unless aborted.
> 
> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using this 
> "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls D(D), it 
> does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
> 

We haven't ever reach that point where the patterns are detailed yet.
You are saying the the details are wrong on the basis of not seeing
them.

> 
>>
>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>> 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11   H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> *Execution Trace*
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>> 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.
> 
> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that it 
> would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done it, 
> showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the refutation, and 
> thus by just repeating a statment that is know to at least potentially 
> have a problem as if it was just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
> 
>>
>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
> 
> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think of 
> some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods were 
> discussed a long time back)
> 

It is no longer possible to intentionally mismatch the elements
of H/D pairs: *The D simulated by the H that this D calls*
I am stopping on this point until this point is fully resolved

If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.

>>
>> *Shown by ordinary software engineering* When the directly executed
>> H(D,D) aborts simulating its input then all of the nested simulations
>> (if any) immediately totally stop running and no simulated H ever
>> returns any value to any simulated D.
>>
> 
> Right, but that doesn't change the behavor of the correctly and 
> completely simulated input or the direct execution of the program 
> descirbed.
> 
>>  From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set
>> of H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls
>> that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H.
> 
> Nope. And the conclusion doesn't even follow from the incorrect premise.
> 
> 
>>
>> *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
>>
> 
> Just LIES.

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