Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Mon, 6 May 2024 23:17:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1c2ng$9f73$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 03:17:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="310498"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1c43h$3168a$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5620
Lines: 132

On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>
>>
>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I 
>> have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>
> 
> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
> as complete proof of huge election fraud.

But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the 
absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that 
actually simulates the input to the end state.

Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of 
evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect that 
there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the rules of 
logic say the person asserting the existance of something has the burden 
of proof.

Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it 
means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.


> 
> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
> NOT telling the truth.

Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.

As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it, call 
myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and you can 
not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop posting your 
insaine ideas about halting.

If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to 
make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.

> 
>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a 
>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>
> 
> Is your memory really that bad?
> 
> 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 }
> 
> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
> 
> AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
> 
> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
> H simulates itself simulating D(D).

So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must 
simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.

CHECK.

Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.


> 
>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>