Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v2ek1t$3qnl3$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: immibis <news@immibis.com> Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally? --- Message_ID Provided Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 06:37:17 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 163 Message-ID: <v2ek1t$3qnl3$1@dont-email.me> References: <v0k4jc$laej$1@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> <v2b179$2u8oi$2@dont-email.me> <v2b1g3$1ct7p$17@i2pn2.org> <v2bb0g$308qd$1@dont-email.me> <v2bc8u$1ecj9$4@i2pn2.org> <v2bdaj$30o5r$1@dont-email.me> <v2be6g$1ecja$2@i2pn2.org> <v2btfr$36vvc$3@dont-email.me> <v2cqii$3cek2$2@dont-email.me> <v2cthk$3d018$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 06:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fa921e7d3e9411b357ff99fb26c1b6c6"; logging-data="4021923"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jGfWDUSgCjTQZqlRlO/51" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:WaSITtq9EQSRMbhPc4ujV0qX0K0= In-Reply-To: <v2cthk$3d018$1@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7833 On 19/05/24 15:06, olcott wrote: > On 5/19/2024 7:16 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 19/05/24 05:59, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/18/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/18/24 7:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/18/2024 6:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/18/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 3:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 3:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The second method uses the fact that you have not restricted >>>>>>>>>> what H is allowed to do, and thus H can remember that it is >>>>>>>>>> simulating, and if a call to H shows that it is currently >>>>>>>>>> doing a simulation, just immediately return 0. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice try but this has no effect on any D correctly simulated by H. >>>>>>>>> When the directly executed H aborts its simulation it only returns >>>>>>>>> to whatever directly executed it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? My H does correctly simulate the D it was given. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand how the C code actually works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the directly executed outermost H does not abort then none of >>>>>>>>> the inner simulated ones abort because they are the exact same >>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>> When the directly executed outermost H does abort it can only >>>>>>>>> return >>>>>>>>> to its own caller. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHAT inner simulatioin? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My H begins as: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> int H(ptr x, ptr y) { >>>>>>>> static int flag = 0; >>>>>>>> if(flag) return 0; >>>>>>>> flag = 1; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> followed by essentially your code for H, except that you need to >>>>>>>> disable the hack that doesn't simulate the call to H, but just >>>>>>>> let it continue into H where it will immediately return to D and >>>>>>>> D will then return. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thus, your claim is shown to be wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are talking about every element of an infinite set where >>>>>>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D thus including 0 to ∞ >>>>>>> recursive simulations of H simulating itself simulating D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *At whatever point the directly executed H(D,D) stops simulating* >>>>>>> *its input it cannot possibly return to any simulated input* >>>>>> >>>>>> And my H never stops simulating, so that doesn't apply. It will >>>>>> reach the final state. >>>>> >>>>> *Show the error in my execution trace that I empirically* >>>>> *proved has no error by H correctly simulating D to the* >>>>> *point where H correctly simulates itself simulating D* >>>>> (Fully operational empirically code proved this) >>>> >>>> See below: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 } >>>> >>>> For Reference >>>> >>>> 14 int H(ptr x, ptr y) >>>> 15 { >>>> 16 static int flag = 0 >>>> 17 if (flag) >>>> 18 return 0 >>>> 19 ... continuation of H that simulates its input >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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) >>>> >>>> Line 03: Calls H (line 14) >>>> Line 16: Static already inited, so not changed. >>>> Line 17: Flag is 1, so >>>> Line 18: Return 0 >>>> Line 03: Set Halt_Status to 0 >>>> Line 04: if (Halt_Status) halts status is 0, so skip >>>> Line 06: return Halt_Status >>>> >>>> Simulation completed, program halted. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simulation invariant: >>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. Not for this H >>>> >>>> >>> >>> (a) That idea might work yet you did not say it correctly. >>> For example line 11 is the first one invoked. >>> (b) Computable functions cannot alter their behavior this way. >>> >>> (1) the function return values are identical for identical arguments (no >>> variation with local static variables, non-local variables, mutable >>> reference arguments or input streams, i.e., referential >>> transparency), and >> >> Your function H works like Richard's function H. You just called the >> variable "execution trace" instead of "flag". > > pages 4-5 (of a paper that I published 2021-09-26 09:39 AM) > Show H simulating P and H simulating itself simulating P. > > The 395 pages of the execution trace of the simulated H are > screened out. No one here could ever understand the half page > trace so embedding that in 395 more pages would not help. The fact that you took 395 pages to get to "if(flag) return 0;" does not mean that you didn't use "if(flag) return 0;" > > That P is simulated correctly is proven by the fact that the > x86 assembly language instructions of P are correctly simulated > and they are simulated in the order that the assembly language > of P specifies. This is a lie -> If every assembly instruction that was simulated is simulated correctly, the program was simulated correctly. <- This is a lie.