Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.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: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 10:50:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 213
Message-ID: <v1lfnq$1e7af$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> <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 17:50:18 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c0c43cbc173c29c782eabc90f798410";
	logging-data="1514831"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LHFrQE0I68lc3CN0Rprd8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F5nez353HvWYop1BLKTG+3VdK28=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 10163

On 5/10/2024 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the proof:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the 
>>>>> direct execution.
>>>>
>>>> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
>>>> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H 
>>>> possibly
>>>> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
>>>> of D simulated by H:
>>>
>>> Nope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this 
>>> multiple times.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========