Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 20:47:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v199bk$5asr$15@i2pn2.org>
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> <v19252$5asr$14@i2pn2.org>
 <v198jn$253i2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 00:47:48 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="175003"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v198jn$253i2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5409
Lines: 109

On 5/5/24 8:35 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 6:03 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.
>>
>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does 
>> NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that 
>> machine would be simulating.
>>
> 
> I am not talking about my H
> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
> I will repeat this endlessly to your every post until you get it

So, what does an infinite set of programs and an infinte set of inputs do?

If you don't run each of those H's individually on its D, what else do 
you mean to do?

I think you need to figure out how your computation model actua;lly works,

It seems to be just a bunch of gobbledygook to me.

It seems about as bad as WM and his dark numbers.