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: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to
 prove otherwise --- x86 DD
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:34:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <v3ihgp$3g2kl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v3feqn$2rdp3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fgat$2n53n$5@i2pn2.org> <v3fhan$2rsbs$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fi55$2n53o$6@i2pn2.org> <v3fiq7$2rsbs$5@dont-email.me>
 <v3flc5$2n53o$7@i2pn2.org> <v3flm8$2sm3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fm1e$2n53n$8@i2pn2.org> <v3fmlc$2sogn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fncn$2n53n$9@i2pn2.org> <v3fo1p$2t1ac$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3fqpt$2tjjm$1@dont-email.me> <v3fu48$2ulbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g0b9$2n53n$17@i2pn2.org> <v3g0q4$2v3lp$3@dont-email.me>
 <v3g2t2$2n53n$20@i2pn2.org> <v3g3ja$2vho5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3g7eb$2n53n$23@i2pn2.org> <v3g80k$30c96$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3g99u$2n53n$24@i2pn2.org> <v3g9tc$30pbl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3gaot$2n53n$26@i2pn2.org> <v3gp5p$36pdg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3hmbv$2q5op$1@i2pn2.org> <v3hv26$3bkv5$10@dont-email.me>
 <v3i9o8$2qu72$1@i2pn2.org> <v3ibt9$3f571$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3icnq$2qu71$1@i2pn2.org> <v3idlk$3f571$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3ifpp$2qu72$11@i2pn2.org> <v3ig8p$3f571$14@dont-email.me>
 <WD37O.6414$Cs55.45@fx33.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 21:34:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353";
	logging-data="3672725"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19kZmXYIySDnRck8yiUqRBa"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HAnq9o3Jvjh7MFcK4CCDwth/7IY=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <WD37O.6414$Cs55.45@fx33.iad>
Bytes: 9144

On 6/2/2024 2:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/2/24 3:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/2/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/2/24 2:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/2/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/2/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Semantic tautologies are self-evident truth that prove themselves.
>>>>>>>> It is a fact that every five pound rock weights more than any
>>>>>>>> three pound rock. No need to weigh any rocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, so you don't need to weigh a five pound rock to know it is 
>>>>>>> five bpounds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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       }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise we correctly deduce that for every HH/DD pair of the
>>>>>>>> infinite set of all HH/DD pairs that match the above template
>>>>>>>> every DD correctly simulated by HH never reaches past its own
>>>>>>>> simulated line 03, thus never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When for every freaking HH/DD pair that matches the above template
>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possibly ever reaches past its
>>>>>> own simulated line 03 then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we know with complete logical certainty that not a damn one of
>>>>>> these DD instance halts. halts, NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM EVER HALTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, and you are just proving you are totally out of touch with 
>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> EVERY DD built on an HH that returns 0 for HH(DD,DD) will Halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am going to give up on you because you continue to try
>>>> to get away with the straw-mam deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
>>>> fake rebuttal.
>>>
>>> Nope. I am not "Changing the subject" but showing that your subject 
>>> is incorrect or irrelevent.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is the only post that I will reply to and unless you
>>>> either accept that DD correctly simulated by HH will never
>>>> halt for the infinite set of HH/DD pairs specified below
>>>> or correctly refute the paragraph relating to the x86 code
>>>> of DD shown below *I will simply not respond to your posts*
>>>
>>> Which I won't do until you say why it matters.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (a) Accept the DD/HH that DD never halts
>>>> (b) Correctly refute the x86 DD
>>>> *EVERYTHING ELSE WILL GET NO RESPONSE FROM ME*
>>>
>>> And thus a whole list of posts refuting everything that you say that 
>>> you will just be forced to leave out there or convict yourself of LYING.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But any such finite simulation 
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
>> (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
> 
> But you only show the "or infinite number of steps" for DDs built on an 
> HH that never aborts.
> 

Maybe you are having a bad day. You are already forgetting how
you just chastised me last night for not equating finite number
of steps with an aborted simulation.

DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly
reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e]

in any finite
in any finite
in any finite
in any finite
in any finite
(or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
(or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
(or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.
(or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation.

> EVERY version of DD is a different input.
> 

Just the same way that every rock that weighs more than five pounds is
a different rock, YET THEY ALL WEIGH MORE THAN FIVE POUNDS.

> And every version of DD built on an HH that does abort and returns 0 
> will Halt.
> 

I am not using that screwy language it seems dishonest of you
to paraphrase my words that way.

Every DD correctly simulated by DD DOES NOT HALT. I really want
to move on to the much bigger issue of why the behavior of the
directly executed DD(DD) DOES NOT MATTER.

We certainly can't move on to bigger issues when you prove
that you cannot handle the trivial ones.

> it seems you have forgotten the details of what a program is, and I 
> guess you logic insists that a cat is the same as a 10 story office 
> building since different things can be the same thing.
> 
>>
>>> doesn't prove that the machie being simulated is non-halting.
>>>
>>> All you are proving is that the DDs that are provable to be 
>>> non-halting are built to refute HHs that never answer about them.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========