Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state
 and halts
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 08:41:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Message-ID: <v2i89v$jvcs$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v26b2t$1rdu0$1@dont-email.me> <v270q1$22vhs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v276pg$2459k$1@dont-email.me> <v27ukn$28r3c$2@dont-email.me>
 <v29tb3$2nna0$1@dont-email.me> <v2aehu$2qsgt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2ckon$3bc16$1@dont-email.me> <v2crno$3cifp$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2cvlk$3de7m$1@dont-email.me> <v2d0jd$3ddo5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2f0dk$3ssf8$1@dont-email.me> <v2g2nn$3ugq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v2hq57$hge2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 15:41:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5f52f96f067406075e702eab09af4a";
	logging-data="654748"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lJkzeUcGFtLCluiOOr1yv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qvQo4So112J4AK3u+9af930sT0k=
In-Reply-To: <v2hq57$hge2$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5935

On 5/21/2024 4:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-20 17:53:59 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 5/20/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-19 13:59:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2024 8:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-19 12:36:08 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/2024 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-18 14:38:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-17 15:55:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/17/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-17 07:25:52 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 17.mei.2024 om 03:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The following is self-evidently true on the basis of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> D(D) is simulated by the same H(D,D) that it calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is a simple software engineering verified fact*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that olcott defines 'verified fact' as 'proven fact', 
>>>>>>>>>>>> but he is unable to show the proof. So, it must be read as 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'my belief'.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A "proven fact" without a proof is not worse than a "verified 
>>>>>>>>>>> fact"
>>>>>>>>>>> without a verification.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *I updated my wording*
>>>>>>>>>> It is self-evidently true to anyone having sufficient knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> of the semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. I would know if it were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you do not understand that a single valid counter-example
>>>>>>>> would refute my claim then you don't know enough about proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your claim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people to not know the difference between deductive proof
>>>>>> ]and inductive evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people don't read comp.theory so here we needn't care.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If anyone is trying to prove me wrong they
>>>> must first understand what an actual proof is.
>>>>
>>>> Several people here seem to think that ad hominem personal
>>>> attacks and insults are the basis for a valid rebuttal.
>>>>
>>>> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
>>>> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}
>>>
>>> More generally, everybody who knows what ∈ usually means,
>>> thinks that {} ∈ X is true unless it is a syntax error.
>>>
>>
>> According to that reasoning everyone
>> thinks that {cats} ∈ {dogs} is true.
> 
> Apparently your interpretation of either "that reasoning" or
> "everyone" is different from mine.
> 

Richard said that he didn't know he was supposed to provide
correct answers, he thought it was OK to intentionally provide
incorrect answers (AKA lie)

On 5/19/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/19/24 9:59 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> Richard has stated that he thinks that an example of
 >> {D never simulated by H} ∈ {every D simulated by H}
 >
 > No, the H that didn't simulate its input shows that
 > *once you allow H to not be required to be correct*,
 > that we can then have a trivial function that is
 > "just as correct" (since wrong answers were allowed).

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