Path: ...!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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---
 typo
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 17:05:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <v18vr7$23glj$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v18f9e$5asq$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v18lj3$20ukn$1@dont-email.me> <v18sq6$5asr$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v18vni$23glj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 00:05:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ca33c147f4bf21714ceb8650be68951";
	logging-data="2212531"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QkLSfHe3BhSD1jH6x30ll"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F08KqCD+rqUAF7XqpfPJnJ9X8v8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v18vni$23glj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6957

On 5/5/2024 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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)
>>>>
>>>
>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>> calls that H.
>>
>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then 
>> resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next.
>>
> 
> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
> 
> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
> 
> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
> 
> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
> 
> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
> 1 ∞ steps of D.
> 

H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate
1 to ∞ steps of D.

> When H stops simulating D then the simulated H that D calls
> also immediately stops because the executed H(D,D) that was
> simulating D(D) was also simulating the H(D,D) that D(D)
> calls as a part of its simulation of D(D).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> You are just stuck in the wrong ideas about H.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> But not "Top Secret" as openly published here, and it was using ideas 
>> that have been discussed here in the past.
>>
>>
>>
>>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>>
>> By LYING that it was not presented.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> This same method worked on an election denier, they deleted all
>>> of their claims of election fraud and left.
>>
>> So, are you willing to put up or shut up?
>>
>> If I can show you how to write a valid C program H that can correctly 
>> simulates this D above (that calls my H), will you abandon your 
>> repeated claims that you can do this?
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *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