Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <v2grhj$1kiah$3@i2pn2.org>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v2grhj$1kiah$3@i2pn2.org>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 20:57:22 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v2grhj$1kiah$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$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$1@dont-email.me> <v1ln3c$vfh$1@news.muc.de>
 <v1s6e6$397iq$2@dont-email.me> <v1slmi$3cjtp$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1t8tt$3gu9t$3@dont-email.me> <v1vc8j$3jmr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v1vsru$7eqc$1@dont-email.me> <v21r4i$otc2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v22k4b$umr4$1@dont-email.me> <v24oah$1h4u3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v256fc$1kais$1@dont-email.me> <v27d05$25ga0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2838r$29rd7$1@dont-email.me> <v2a8th$2ps09$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2ahqc$2qvr9$1@dont-email.me> <v2cb5s$39fvg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2crk0$3cifp$1@dont-email.me> <v2cvuo$3dfkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2d0qm$3ddo5$3@dont-email.me> <v2dc7a$1g2n9$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v2dffn$3gjtv$1@dont-email.me> <v2diom$1g2n8$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v2djtt$3hgb1$1@dont-email.me> <v2dl51$1g2n9$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v2dp7q$3idm2$1@dont-email.me> <v2e24e$1g2n8$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v2g521$49kb$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 00:57:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1722705"; 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: <v2g521$49kb$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11994
Lines: 271

On 5/20/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 6:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/19/24 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2024 2:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/24 3:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2024 2:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/24 2:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/19/24 10:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-19 12:34:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 2:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-18 15:34:36 +0000, James Kuyper said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/24 09:02, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-17 17:14:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recommend ignoring olcott - nothing good ever comes from 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention to him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-16 14:50:19 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2024 5:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-15 15:24:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you find any compiler that is liberal enough to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has been fully operational code under Windows and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux for two years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your compiler does not reject that program it is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conforming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C compiler. The semantics according to C standard is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a diagnostic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message must be given. The standard does not specify 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what happens if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you execute that program anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not nit picky syntax that is the issue here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The SEMANTICS OF THE C PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SPECIFIES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No D simulated correctly by any H of every H/D pair 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the above template ever reaches its own line 06 and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The standard allows that an program is executed but does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify what happens when an invalid program is executed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've cross-posted this to comp.lang.c after a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-running discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solely on comp.theory. Presumably you're doing that because 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some discussion about what the standard says about this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> code. For the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sake of those of us who have not been following that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory, could you please identify what it is that you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think renders
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this code invalid? Offhand, I don't see anything wrong with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, but I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> far more reliable when I say "I see an error" than when I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> say "I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see an error".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fully operational software that runs under Widows and Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the above is true EMPIRICALLY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it does not. As the program is not strictly comforming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and uses a non-standard extension some implementation may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execute it differently or refuse to execute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which non-standard extension does it use?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The main question is whether both arguments of H on the line 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 can have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same name.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was a typo that I did not believe when told because so 
>>>>>>>>>>> may people
>>>>>>>>>>> continue to lie about the behavior of D correctly simulated 
>>>>>>>>>>> by H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does the D that is correctly simulated by H different from 
>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>> D that is incorrectly simulated by H nor not simulated by H?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which has been proven incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Quoted from page 4 of the paper linked below*
>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>>> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    if (H(x, x))HERE:
>>>>>>>     goto HERE;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That P is correctly simulated by H is proven by the fact that
>>>>>>> every assembly language instruction of P is correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by H in the order specified by the x86 assembly language of P
>>>>>>> even when H correctly simulates itself simulating P.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of the details of this (except the 354 page execution
>>>>>>> trace of H) are shown on pages 4-5 of the following paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which of course, will have the details of what H did wrong.
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========