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
Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs ---
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 15:01:23 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3ifi3$2qu72$10@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$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>
 <v3elpv$2mjca$1@dont-email.me> <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3h9af$3974i$1@dont-email.me> <v3htmb$3bkv5$7@dont-email.me>
 <v3ie97$3f51j$7@dont-email.me> <v3iemc$3f571$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 19:01:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2980066"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v3iemc$3f571$7@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5861
Lines: 117

On 6/2/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/2/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 02.jun.2024 om 15:56 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *two dozen people were simply wrong*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
>>>>>> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
>>>>>> more interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem 
>>>>> itself.
>>>>> Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
>>>>> another reply.
>>>>
>>>> The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence
>>>> does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers
>>>> to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either,
>>>> so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third
>>>> sentence says that you covevered nothing.
>>>>
>>>>> That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
>>>>> the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three 
>>>>> years IS
>>>>> WRONG.
>>>>
>>>> That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show
>>>> anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they
>>>> really were wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior
>>> that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself.
>>>
>>> Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated
>>> by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp Sci
>>> dogma to overrule verified facts.
>>>
>>> When I pinned Richard down on this he simply said that he does not care
>>> that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD).
>>>
>>> It turns out that DD correctly simulated by HH <is> the behavior that
>>> the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies. Deciders are ONLY accountable for
>>> their actual inputs. Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS...
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01       int DD(ptr p)
>>> 02       {
>>> 03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
>>> 04         if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05           HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06         return Halt_Status;
>>> 07       }
>>> 08
>>> 09       int main()
>>> 10       {
>>> 11         HH(DD,DD);
>>> 12         return 0;
>>> 13       }
>>>
>>> DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
>>> reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite
>>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
>>
>> Only because the call to HH at [00001c2e] does not return, because HH 
>> does not reach its own return in any finite (or infinite) number of 
>> steps of correct emulation.
>>
> 
> When HH correctly simulates DD and DD calls the simulated HH(DD,DD)
> to simulate itself again
> 
> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
> *this simulated HH is not required to halt*
> 

It is required to act just like the real HH.

> The executed HH must halt.

So, the simulated HH *IS* required to halt.

Otherwise you have LIED that it is (a copy of) the exact same pure function.

> 
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>
>