Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v1na6f$1ugl0$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: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Is Richard a Liar? Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 11:27:59 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 341 Message-ID: <v1na6f$1ugl0$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> <v1m2hc$1ijhr$1@dont-email.me> <v1m31m$lbo4$1@i2pn2.org> <v1m4et$1iv85$1@dont-email.me> <v1m5co$lbo4$2@i2pn2.org> <v1m71h$1jnpi$1@dont-email.me> <v1m7mh$lbo5$5@i2pn2.org> <v1mb8f$1kgpl$1@dont-email.me> <v1mkf8$lbo5$7@i2pn2.org> <v1mkmm$1q5ee$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 10:28:00 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b1e9ebbe43d2ec78e9a9a5d9de9132c"; logging-data="2048672"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BndQNBMIfUs6ITChmqPEj" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:NS356StFqVEX6zBwxdnYnzox6jc= Bytes: 18603 On 2024-05-11 02:21:10 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/10/24 7:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/10/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/10/24 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/10/2024 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/10/24 5:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/10/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/10/24 5:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My H simulated 0 steps of D, of which was ALL of the steps it simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========