Path: ...!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: Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 16:11:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 286
Message-ID: <v1m2hc$1ijhr$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>
 <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> <v1lh1g$kf52$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lmo1$1g1mj$1@dont-email.me> <v1luu1$lbo5$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v1lvuo$1i47i$1@dont-email.me> <v1m1bf$lbo5$4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 23:11:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c0c43cbc173c29c782eabc90f798410";
	logging-data="1658427"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pwRQX0xtIFvdqYkvgvzNZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3eOPKmc1oK7wpAgfJYxvnWsKlCI=
In-Reply-To: <v1m1bf$lbo5$4@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 13997

On 5/10/2024 3:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/10/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/10/2024 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/10/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========