Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 21:36:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <v19fmj$2aufj$3@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> <v19252$5asr$14@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 04:36:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ca33c147f4bf21714ceb8650be68951";
	logging-data="2456051"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+aQkrywcQ+7DmMdsLYCtGX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ksgxN4UVK+TK94lyMuIccqpZv+4=
In-Reply-To: <v19252$5asr$14@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5391

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.

The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
....
The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
....
All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D

None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
ever reach past their own line 03.

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