Path: ...!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: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 14:28:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v2avh9$2u35v$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@dont-email.me> <v0l11u$ussl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0lh24$123q3$1@dont-email.me> <v0lic7$2g492$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lkas$12q0o$3@dont-email.me> <v0loq2$2g493$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0lq7d$14579$2@dont-email.me> <v0ls98$2g492$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m29q$166o1$1@dont-email.me> <v0m37e$2gl1e$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m3v5$16k3h$1@dont-email.me> <v0m55t$2gl1f$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m5sn$172p4$1@dont-email.me> <v0m7em$2gl1f$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m7tq$17dpv$1@dont-email.me> <v0m8g9$2gl1e$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0m978$17k7o$3@dont-email.me> <v0mko6$2hf3s$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0n59h$1h98e$1@dont-email.me> <v0o037$2j1tu$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v0oc65$1q3aq$3@dont-email.me> <v0p9ts$2ki5r$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0q1rk$2a3u1$1@dont-email.me> <v0qkti$2m1nf$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v0r4a3$2hb7o$6@dont-email.me> <v0rsbr$2m1nf$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v0segm$2v4oq$1@dont-email.me> <v0t8o9$2p3ri$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v0tpjf$3881i$5@dont-email.me> <v0ulma$2qov4$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v2atgh$2tove$1@dont-email.me> <v2auuq$1ct7o$12@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 21:28:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="95afb1fc0a4871125108def5044e156a";
	logging-data="3083455"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+twVbNqhnjJXHKNVT841Wq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+9E1Ln7jM8atcBsKR9PqQtGVpME=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v2auuq$1ct7o$12@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5738

On 5/18/2024 2:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/18/24 2:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/1/24 12:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Until you refine your current non-existant definitions of the 
>>>>> terms, you have the problem described.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can't have any idea what you are saying until you fill in
>>>> all of the details of your baseless claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But you refuse to listen.
>>>
>>> Remember, YOU are the one saying you are needing to change the 
>>> definition from the classical theory, where we have things well defined.
>>>
>>> YOU have decider that H is just whatever C code you want to write for 
>>> it, and D is the input proved. (which doesn't actually match the Linz 
>>> or Sipser proof, but fairly close).
>>>
>>
>> First of all the code template that I am currently referring
>> has nothing to do with any decider, it only pertains to a
>> simulator where H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D
>> of each H/D pair specified by the following template.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr y);
>> 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   return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> In the above case a simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates
>> at least one of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the
>> x86 instructions of D.
>>
>> This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in the
>> order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D) in
>> recursive simulation.
>>
>> Execution Trace
>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>
>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>> Line 01:
>> Line 02:
>> 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 key thing to note is that no D correctly simulated by any H of 
>> every H/D pair specified by the above template ever reaches its own 
>> line 06 and halts.
>>
>>> With THAT set of definitions we have a lot of options that break your 
>>> incorrectly assumed results.
>>>
>>
>> I augmented the definitions since you posted this reply.
>>
>>> The first method has been discussed here by Flibble. While the final 
>>> answer he got to doesn't fit the requirements, the first part of the 
>>> method DOES show that it is possible for an H to simulate to past 
>>> line 3.
>>>
>>
>> It is impossible for D to be correctly simulated by H within the
>> above definitions that have H as only a simulator and specify
>> exactly what a correct simulation is.
>>
>>> THe basic idea is that if H(M,d) finds that its simulation of M(d) 
>>> get to a call to H(M,d) then rather that your idea of just saying it 
>>> will get stuck and declair the input invalid, since there ARE a 
>>> number of possible inputs that there is a "correct" answer that H can 
>>> give to match the behavior of the direct execution of M(d), what H 
>>> does is fork its simulation into two threads.
>>>
>>
>> Pure simulator H has no basis to do that. I am stopping here
>> you can update this view on this new set of definitions.
>>
>>
> 
> And point of fact, YOUR H doesn't meet your definition either, 

The above refers to pure simulator H that correctly simulates
1 to ∞ steps of D. It takes you a very very long time to
*PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION TO ALL OF MY EXACT WORDS*

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer