Path: ...!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(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:36:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <v39vdl$1mtd9$6@dont-email.me>
References: <v18e32$1vbql$1@dont-email.me> <v21r4i$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2i921$jvcs$5@dont-email.me> <v2k7fe$12vjm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2l0q8$17mu1$1@dont-email.me> <v2n4f7$1ms87$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2nfma$1or9h$4@dont-email.me> <v2pkqq$28mg0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2qhr2$2dpfr$6@dont-email.me> <v2s6kk$2q0pf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2skde$2s65h$1@dont-email.me> <v2uthd$3bjch$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vdkp$3dtct$3@dont-email.me> <v2vned$3fl3r$1@dont-email.me>
 <v2vp8f$3g0m3$1@dont-email.me> <v31f7s$3ukf5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3236b$29pd$1@dont-email.me> <v340en$gbvn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v34q6t$krgu$1@dont-email.me> <v36ra1$12u78$1@dont-email.me>
 <v379tc$159q4$3@dont-email.me> <v39ivq$1l09d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 15:36:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a722b73a14c6c7bef786c05822a9348";
	logging-data="1799593"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18iBB/XfCQm3qv7K2BndbXF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5/GpXaEpktR8ZntcpelQm0r7040=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v39ivq$1l09d$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7850

On 5/30/2024 5:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 29.mei.2024 om 15:17 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/29/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-28 14:37:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2024 2:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-27 13:52:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>>>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>>>>> can see the whole message now that
>>>>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would 
>>>>>>>> remain
>>>>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never 
>>>>>>>> reaches its
>>>>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your 
>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure 
>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>>>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>>>>
>>>>> What is said here has little significance. You should ask reviewer's
>>>>> comments about your working draft that you maintain in GitHub or some
>>>>> other web site. And you should update that draft when a reviewer finds
>>>>> some something wrong or unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is STEP ONE of my four step proof*
>>>>>> STEP TWO applies these same ideas to the Peter Linz HP proof.
>>>>>> STEP THREE shows how the Linz Ĥ.H sees the behavior of its recursive
>>>>>>       simulations.
>>>>>> STEP FOUR shows why the behavior of the INPUT is the correct basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> When discussing individual steps of a proof draft you shold start
>>>>> at the last step.
>>>>
>>>> I have been at this for twenty years.
>>>> Ben Bacarisse has spoken with me for 15 of those years.
>>>>
>>>> What I found out is that exactly one point of one step
>>>> must be pursued until complete closure of that one point
>>>> of that one step.
>>>
>>> How long do you think it takes to cover them all, starting
>>> from the first?
>>>
>>> How long do you think it would take, starting from the last?
>>>
>>
>> The first point was closed in less than one hour with each of
>> four people that were not playing head games.
>>
>> 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 either pure simulator H or 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.
>>
>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H or
>> pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated D
>> ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>
>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>     This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>     correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>
>>     A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>     x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>     of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>     emulating D.
>>
>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>> line 06 and halt.
>>
> 
> The stimulation of D does not reach line 06, because the simulation of H 
> does not reach its final state. This means that line 04, 05 and 06 are 
> irrelevant for the claim. What it shows is that D is a parameter 
> duplicator, so that H simulates itself and it shows that H has 
> non-halting behaviour. So, this H is not in agreements of the 
> requirement that it should halt.

H is determining whether or not D correctly simulated by H can
possibly reach its own simulated final state and halt. The
correct answer is no.

>  If the simulated H would halt (as is 
> required) then the simulation of D would continue with line 04.

This is incorrect. Only the directly executed outermost H must halt.
Everything else is merely data to this directly executed H.

>  That it 
> does not do that, is because H does not return, although it was required 
> to halt.

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