Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 20:30:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v1ubaa$v37v$4@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>
 <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> <v1s6cs$397iq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1t420$3frjs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 00:30:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1019135"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v1t420$3frjs$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 13111
Lines: 261

On 5/13/24 9:19 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2024 11:53 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 10/05/24 19:49, 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 ==========