Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!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: D(D) simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 08:04:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <v3sc4q$1gra7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v12pgu$im12$1@dont-email.me> <v3hf97$3a0km$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3i0ri$3cpu7$4@dont-email.me> <v3js08$3q76h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3kcod$3stk9$3@dont-email.me> <v3kj9m$3u4o3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3l0sq$5d3$3@dont-email.me> <v3p2nf$s7to$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pnq7$v133$4@dont-email.me> <v3rqoq$1e1lg$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2024 15:04:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4cb2a3366a4bdb85a28904f6e3988fec";
	logging-data="1600839"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KP1mx+Yl+7HgGDlFmJSGx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6AFsfjig0egipOcnSikkXGyjtvs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v3rqoq$1e1lg$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6399

On 6/6/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-05 13:05:11 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/5/2024 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-03 18:09:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/3/2024 9:17 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-03 12:25:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-02 14:50:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2024 4:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 03.mei.2024 om 15:40 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>> 04   if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>> 05     HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>> 11   H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are examining the behavior of D(D) for every possible H/D pair
>>>>>>>>>> where 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Execution Trace*
>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>> Line 01
>>>>>>>>>> Line 02
>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that 
>>>>>>>>>> simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own 
>>>>>>>>>> line 03.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Linz proof is based on the pathological relation ship that 
>>>>>>>>> D contradicts the result of H. This is expressed in lines 04, 
>>>>>>>>> 05, 06 of D, above.
>>>>>>>>> It is strange that olcott claims that the simulation never sees 
>>>>>>>>> the pathological part of D. He now seems to shift the meaning 
>>>>>>>>> of pathological to the mere fact that D calls H. Lines 04, 05, 
>>>>>>>>> and 06 are completely irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> In fact, any function that calls H now become pathological.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> E.G. if we replace D with a function P that only returns its 
>>>>>>>>> own Halt_Status:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 01 int P(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>> 03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>> 04
>>>>>>>>> 05
>>>>>>>>> 06   return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then we would normally expect that, because H is required to 
>>>>>>>>> halt, P would halt as well. But the simulation of P by H does 
>>>>>>>>> not halt. So, P, when it halts, reports that it not halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem here is, that H is unable to simulate itself to its 
>>>>>>>>> final state. That has no relation with the Linz proof, it is a 
>>>>>>>>> problem of H.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, there is another *Simulation invariant*
>>>>>>>>> H correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own return.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Already addressed in another reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which reply? The one where you said you made a mistake? Or typo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not going to answer the same question from multiple people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your choice. But you can't keep multiple people from seeing your
>>>>> lack of answer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is my canned reply that no one has attempted to refute because
>>>> they know it is irrefutable. When we are analyzing x86 code and
>>>> someone disagrees that is like disagreeing that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>
>>> The code has been anylzed by several people so carefully that
>>> any disagreement really is like s like disagreeing that 2 + 3 = 5.
>>> But you disagree anyway:
>>>
>>
>> It has been "analyzed" by dogmatic assertions utterly bereft
>> of any supporting reasoning.
> 
> So it has, at least by you.
> 
>> It is empirically proven that the behavior of the directly executed
>> DD(DD) is different than the behavior of DD correctly simulated by
>> HH.
> 
> Empirical observations are not an analysis. 

Try any show how this DD can be correctly simulated by any HH
such that this DD reaches past its machine address [00001dbe]

_DD()
[00001e12] 55         push ebp
[00001e13] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp
[00001e15] 51         push ecx
[00001e16] 8b4508     mov  eax,[ebp+08]
[00001e19] 50         push eax      ; push DD
[00001e1a] 8b4d08     mov  ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001e1d] 51         push ecx      ; push DD
[00001e1e] e85ff5ffff call 00001382 ; call HH

> They do not prove about
> the same as an analysis so cannot contradict. Any demonstration of
> any relation between the two requires a careful comparison the details
> of each, for example whether the HH in the empirical proof is similar
> enough to H in the analysis.
> 
>> People can lie about this yet cannot possibly show otherwise.
> 
> That is the restriction of some people, for example you. But some have
> shown otherwise. They needn't to show it to you but for someone not yet
> familiar with the topic those demonstrations can be useful.
> 

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