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: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 Mike Terry
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:04:13 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <v3cotd$297ao$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v38kh7$2foi0$15@i2pn2.org> <v38lsl$1ggjs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38o71$2foi0$17@i2pn2.org> <v38ogh$1grj4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v39fll$2grvb$2@i2pn2.org> <v3c0il$256o0$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:04:14 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08a73d0f9257967986a8324b25ade22a";
	logging-data="2399576"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18oPD9Vu4A/Ah1ZtGdvnzcr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l1DQKcG7EvDHuODZWbPsxgCdw/I=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3c0il$256o0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9591

On 5/31/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-30 09:08:05 +0000, joes said:
> 
>> Am Wed, 29 May 2024 21:32:49 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/29/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/24 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 8:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 2:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 1:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How about a bit of respect?  Mike specifically asked you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to cite his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name as a back up for your points.  Why do you keep 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing it?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that two dozen people are easily proven 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they claimed that the correct simulation of the input to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the behavior of int main() { D(D); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that?
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't a "Correct Simulation" by the definition that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow the relating of a "Simulation" to the behavior of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right the execution trace of D simulated by pure function H 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an x86 emulator must show that D cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final state and halt or the simulation of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of D is incorrect or in the wrong order.
>> Or aborts prematurely.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you aren't going to resolve the question but just keep up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with your contradiction that H is simulating a template (that
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't HAVE any instrucitons of H in it) but also DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate those non-existance instructions by LYING about what
>>>>>>>>>>>> it does and simulating a SPECIFIC instance that it LIES behaves
>>>>>>>>>>>> just like DIFFERENT specific instatces.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the question ISN'T about the SIMULATED D, but about the
>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the actual PROGRAM/MACHINE D
>> Which should be the same.
>>>>>>>>>> This seems to be your blind spot.
>>
>>>>>>>>> ∃H  ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>>> ∀x  ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>>>>> ∀y  ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really the above formalization does not can cannot
>>>>>>>>> specify Turing Machines as the input to any decider H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then what is x representing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES
>>>>>>> behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate.
>> What’s the difference?
>>
>>>>>> No, it specifies the machine, and thus, though that, the behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If we assume that a decider takes an actual Turing machine as its
>>>>> input that is correct otherwise that is one level of indirection
>>>>> away from what we are really looking at.
>>>>>
>>>>> The people have perpetuated this mistake for many decades never
>>>>> actually made it not a mistake.
>>
>>
>>>> You need to define what you mean by "Indirection", because you aren't
>>>> using it in the normal manner.
>>>
>>> I have conclusively proven that the behavior of the correct
>>> simulation of the x86 code of D by pure function H has
>>> different behavior than the direct execution of D(D).
>> Then H is not a correct simulator.
> 
> Either that or the correct simulation of the x86 of D by pure function
> H does not exists. If you ensure that H is not a pure functin or
> that H never performs a correct simulation of D you can say whatever
> you want about the impossible simulation, for example that it
> is yellow.
> 


*I proved that Mike Terry is wrong and he simply ignored the proof*
*I proved that Mike Terry is wrong and he simply ignored the proof*
*I proved that Mike Terry is wrong and he simply ignored the proof*

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3CS8CcnRadHexfe8X7nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d%40brightview.co.uk%3E+

"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)

DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach its own final state at machine address 00001c47 in any finite
number of steps of correct emulation.

_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]

*The Provably Correct Execution Trace that Mike Terry Ignored*
*The Provably Correct Execution Trace that Mike Terry Ignored*
*The Provably Correct Execution Trace that Mike Terry Ignored*

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113075
[00001c22][00113061][00113065] 55         push ebp
[00001c23][00113061][00113065] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0011305d][00103031] 51         push ecx
[00001c26][0011305d][00103031] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][00113059][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001c2a][00113059][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][00113055][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001c2e][00113051][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
New slave_stack at:14da95
[00001c22][0015da89][0015da8d] 55         push ebp
[00001c23][0015da89][0015da8d] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25][0015da85][0014da59] 51         push ecx
[00001c26][0015da85][0014da59] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29][0015da81][00001c22] 50         push eax         ; push DD
[00001c2a][0015da81][00001c22] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d][0015da7d][00001c22] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
[00001c2e][0015da79][00001c33] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
Local Halt Decider: Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped

*The Execution Trace is proven to be correct on the basis of*
*the fact that the above x86 machine language instructions of DD*
*are correctly emulated by HH in their correct order*

"...the Turing machine will halt whenever it enters a final state."
Linz(1990:234)

DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach its own final state at machine address 00001c47 in any finite
number of steps of correct emulation.

*Here is the C version*
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========