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 22:11:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v19e8g$5asq$11@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>
 <v18tov$22tig$1@dont-email.me> <v18v9q$5asr$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v192q4$2436r$1@dont-email.me> <v194kl$5asq$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v19bjn$25pgk$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 02:11:28 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="175002"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v19bjn$25pgk$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9006
Lines: 208

On 5/5/24 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/24 5:30 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> Elements of this set of H/D pairs simulate from 1 to infinite steps 
>>>>> of D and each one of them does this in an infinite number of 
>>>>> different ways.
>>>>
>>>> (this is wrong, as EACH H only simulates its one D one way, so each 
>>>> one doesn't simulate in an infinite number of ways, but I think you 
>>>> are just failing at grammer here
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are an infinite number of different ways for H to simulate
>>>>> 1 step of D.
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Your system clock is off you responded to my 5:30 post at 4:56*
>>
>> No, you don't seem to understand about TIME ZONES.
>>
>> I guess that is too advanced for you.
>>
> 
> USENET posts are in universal time and only translated
> in the news reader. That your replies are coming in
> before some of my later posts indicates an issue
> on your end.

What makes you think that time stamps are in Universal Time.

Your posts date stamp for this message is:
Sun, 5 May 2024 20:26:15 -0500

Indicating it was sent at 8:26:15 PM by your local clock which is 5 
hours behind GMT.

My news reader, when I replied, converted that time to MY local time 
zone, which is -0400

As to order changing, it isn't unusual for messages posted from 
different servers to get to places with differing speeds.

I am not sure how you think MY postes going FAST is an issue. If my 
posts are passing your posts, then it must be your posts are SLOW

Unless you think someone on usenet has developed a time traveling gateway.

Or, do you think that I have some special connections where I can get 
your posts before you make them.

> 
>>>
>>>> The TWO methods I posted still follow that description and show how 
>>>> H can simulate past the point that you say NO H can get past,
>>>>
>>>
>>> *This has already been proven to be dishonest*
>>
>> Nope, you seem to be stuck on the example below, which is not either 
>> of the two methods I showed how to simulate past the call, but showed 
>> how if your statement WAS made to be correct, how it implies a trivial 
>> decider could also be considered correct.
>>
>> I have mentioned this several times, but I guess you can't understand 
>> basic English.
>>
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>  >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>  >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless
>>>  >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
>>>  >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>>>  >
>>>  > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
>>>  >
>>>  > It means that
>>>  >
>>>  > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>  > return 0;
>>>  > }
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========