Path: ...!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: Tue, 7 May 2024 12:31:46 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 310
Message-ID: <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me>
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> <v1c9gn$9f73$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v1c9m6$325ls$1@dont-email.me> <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 19:31:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1fe47412d5222aa086f42d5af46fe483";
	logging-data="3562929"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lW7UvcoxhYGEwdeSiIwyq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RyQeyPKopojDKnw63EXBIBfgq9w=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1d2kp$9f72$10@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 12651

On 5/7/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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, 
>>
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>>
>> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
>> 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.
> 
> 
> You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
> 
> As I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to, 
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it 
> is.
> 

Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.

Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*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.

The you claim that I am a liar and do not provide your
basis for this constitutes additional evidence of defamation.

I suspect that you already know you have no basis thus
your intent is purely malevolent.

Proving the "actual malice" of defamation cases need
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========