Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v1hgvb$en3a$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Date: Wed, 8 May 2024 22:46:50 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 257 Message-ID: <v1hgvb$en3a$1@dont-email.me> 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> <v1dtdv$3dqg4$1@dont-email.me> <v1du2i$3dt7u$1@dont-email.me> <v1fetd$3s7jo$1@dont-email.me> <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me> <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> <S3adnSAsJp_xoKH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 05:46:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a72ed5afac70d06aa4533361cc1053d1"; logging-data="482410"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19erE0OnoWgUR8mccQI5sUQ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+OwM5Ghro1M08Mo27bbZy+DsRlM= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <S3adnSAsJp_xoKH7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> Bytes: 11747 On 5/8/2024 10:05 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 08/05/2024 20:05, olcott wrote: >> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of >>>>>>> many more simulations that only these. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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). >>>>>> >>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches >>>>>> past its own line 03. >>>>> >>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its >>>>> line >>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line >>>>> is another question. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise* >>>> >>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite >>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct. >>>> >>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code. >>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on >>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)()) >>> >>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows >>> HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. >>> As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the >>> outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally >>> separate "I am called in nested mode" code path! >>> >> >> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to >> be a computable function. >> >> *Maybe you can settle this* >> >> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing. >> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could >> reach past its own line 03 and halt. >> > > I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance > that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support > of your claims. Not that I can really enforce this, but I think for the > most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement > you made on this, if you chose to make one. > That is really great Mike, you have been a wonderful help. I will agree not to quote you anywhere else but these two forums and I am nearly certain that I never quoted anyone else from these forums anywhere else besides these forums. > You understand the reason I ask this: you are unfortunately completely > unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you > (mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your > argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that > [something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of > context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]." > OK, so I agree that I will only quote you using the message ID of your reply with its time/date stamp and I will only quote you in these forums. I am at least 99% certain that I never named anyone in these forums in any other forums or any other means of communication. Your greatest help was to confirm my intuition that a simulating ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========