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: Tue, 7 May 2024 00:08:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1c9gn$9f73$5@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> <v1c6g2$9f72$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c7ph$31thl$2@dont-email.me> <v1c8ne$9f72$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c8s6$3242s$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 04:08:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="310499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1c8s6$3242s$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8905
Lines: 220

On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was 
>> refering to, 
> 
> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
> (Until you change your tune).
> 
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>  > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
> 
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
> 
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.


And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.


Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was 
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar 
by saying it is.

You just don't understand what Truth means.

Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.

Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be 
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then 
I can stop refuting you.


The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess 
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just 
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.

> 
>> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying 
>> it is.
>>
>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>
>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are 
>> lair.
>>
>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be 
>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and 
>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess 
>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just 
>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========