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 you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in
 recursive simulation?
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:37:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 129
Message-ID: <v2r1a5$2ge4f$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v2nsvh$1rd65$2@dont-email.me> <v2oreb$1tsmo$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v2pr71$29rhj$2@dont-email.me> <v2qhef$2dpfr$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2qihr$1vblq$3@i2pn2.org> <v2qrpt$2fesr$4@dont-email.me>
 <v2qvb0$1vblp$3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 23:37:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="853a48eea7a3e841565c364baea8e5bf";
	logging-data="2635919"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KI/3HhtqHaUcSNDajQinG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CJ+X7S4TEpVQnhapqAMcUJz+O7U=
In-Reply-To: <v2qvb0$1vblp$3@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6922

On 5/24/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/24/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/24/2024 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/24/24 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/2024 5:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 24.mei.2024 om 03:44 schreef Richard Damon:
>>>>>> On 5/23/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
>>>>>>> reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D 
>>>>>>> pair
>>>>>>> was being referred to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Correct Simulation Defined*
>>>>>>>     This is provided because every reviewer had a different 
>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     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); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 
>>>>>>> 02, and 03
>>>>>>>     of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless
>>>>>>>     recursive simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By your definiton of "Correct Simulation", you do realize that you 
>>>>>> have broken connection between the simulaiton not completing and 
>>>>>> the program described by the input not halting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, you do realize that by your requirement on H just being a 
>>>>>> "pure function" that does NOT say that you H qualified to be the 
>>>>>> computational equivalent for a Turing Machine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That due to your "strange" definition of what D is, you are 
>>>>>> putting yourself outside of the grounds of "Computation Theory", 
>>>>>> as that deals with the behavior of specific PROGRAMS, and not the 
>>>>>> "Program Templates" like your D, our the "Infinite set of H/D pairs"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, your "templagte D" is NOT built per either the Linz or 
>>>>>> Sipser rules, as both of those had D built with a COPY of H, which 
>>>>>> is one of your problems with a "Pure Function" as the equivelent. 
>>>>>> You have shown that your H fails to meet the requirements of a 
>>>>>> Turing Machine equivalent, as you can't (or it seems you can't) 
>>>>>> make equivalent copies, where all copies always give the same 
>>>>>> answer for the same inputs. This is a fundamental property of 
>>>>>> Turing Machines, which is why just bing a "Pure Function" isn't 
>>>>>> good enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These issus need to be handled or acknowledged, before agreement 
>>>>>> on your question, as you have shown a history of taking a 
>>>>>> statement and twisting it (perhaps not intentionally, but because 
>>>>>> you don't understand what was being communicated) so we need to 
>>>>>> have a firm understand of what you mean and evidence that you 
>>>>>> accept the limititation causes by your altered definitions from 
>>>>>> the problem that you initially claimed to have started on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, it also means that even if/when you get your agreement, 
>>>>>> you are no closer to your halting proof, as you have shown that 
>>>>>> you undestand that you conditions actually tell you NOTHING about 
>>>>>> the actual behavior of halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If olcott wants to be closer to the Linz or Sipser rules, he could 
>>>>> do so with a small modification: use different names for H. Use H1 
>>>>> when called by main and use H2 when called by D. H1 and H2 are not 
>>>>> required to be exact copies of each other, but only to be 
>>>>> functionally equivalent. By doing so, a lot of useless discussions 
>>>>> could be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> *That violates this*
>>>> For any program H that might determine whether programs halt, a 
>>>> "pathological" program D, called with some input, can pass its own 
>>>> source and its input to H and then specifically do the opposite of 
>>>> what H predicts D will do. No H can exist that handles this case. 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, D, that pathological program, is supposed to be built with its 
>>> own COPY of the decider, since to BE a program, it needs a complete 
>>> source set.
>>>
>>
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>> OFF-TOPIC OF THE SUBJECT LINE
>>
> 
> Nope, part of confirmnig your requriements.

ITS NOT IN THE SPEC THEREFORE ITS WRONG

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