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: Wed, 8 May 2024 07:39:00 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1fo8k$dt8i$2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v1avuv$2lks2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1b7gl$2ndka$1@dont-email.me> <v1cla9$34iis$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1d2mi$9f72$11@i2pn2.org> <v1di1h$3b2m5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1eofe$cp5s$1@i2pn2.org> <v1eomj$3nb4c$3@dont-email.me>
 <v1epdo$cp5s$8@i2pn2.org> <v1eqej$3nnch$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 11:39:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="455954"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v1eqej$3nnch$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6618
Lines: 154

On 5/7/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like ZFC 
>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>> is no universal set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs 
>>>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same 
>>>>> H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated steps 
>>>>> of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive simulations of H simulating 
>>>>> itself simulating D(D). Every time Lines 1,2,3 are simulated again 
>>>>> defines
>>>>> one more level of recursive simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step  of D  is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> Ok, and I can make an H that simulates its D to the final state.
>>>
>>> Liar
>>>
>>
>> Was PROVEN.
>>
>> Are you willing to put up or shut up, or don't you beleive your own 
>> claim?
>>
> 
> You are simply lying just like the pillow guy.
> It was never proven and you know it was never proven.
> The pillow guy is having all of his assets confiscated.
> 

Right, because he at least had the strength of belief to put up.




> If it was ever proven you could write is down again
> or give a time/date stamp. That you refuse to do this
> is sufficient evidence to conclude that you are lying.

Yes, I could, but it

> 
>> The fact you are unwilling to make that move just shows that you are 
>> just a pathological liar.
> 
> I am willing to look at your "proof". That you are
> unwilling to provide it is sufficient evidence that
> you are lying.
> 

Are you willing to put up or shut up.

WE are told not to


> It is possible that you believe that you have proof.
> Without seeing what you claim to be proof I cannot
> find your error.
> 
> To the best of my knowledge such a proof is categorically
> impossible.
> 

But was given. DO you believe strong enough to put up or shut up?

"Best of my knowledge" is not a condition for Truth!

As long as you try to hold to that, I will continue to work to frustrate 
you.

Are you are least willing to never again say that no one has proven you 
wrong? You should, since that statement is just a lie, so saying it just 
makes you a liar.