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: Proof that executed HH(DD,DD) and simulated HH(DD,DD) simulate DD
 correctly -- Mike Terry
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:40:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v44icv$3jnc8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3neft$game$1@dont-email.me> <v3nfc4$gatu$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3ngcu$gc4a$2@dont-email.me> <v3p5te$sr75$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3pqdr$1003g$1@dont-email.me> <v3rriu$1e603$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sci6$1gra7$4@dont-email.me> <v3sied$1i3na$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3sj9e$1hufb$2@dont-email.me> <v3u70p$1usbl$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3v34l$22vrk$4@dont-email.me> <v40r2r$2g592$1@dont-email.me>
 <v41ijv$2jqdk$3@dont-email.me> <v43lo5$3a67q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v448ee$3fscf$3@dont-email.me> <v44g74$3j5rn$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 17:40:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f8e472f6a5ded880f3c8d2cedf42e75a";
	logging-data="3792264"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18efM+10igZAvQ/g1tE6XGK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uNVORrTszcypRZpH7Zz18qADE1c=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v44g74$3j5rn$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5446

On 6/9/2024 10:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-06-09 12:50:22 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/9/2024 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-06-08 12:25:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/8/2024 12:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-06-07 13:49:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2024 12:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-06 15:06:22 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>>>>>>    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>>    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>>    stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>>>>>>> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People here that are experts in the C programming language know 
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> *P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless 
>>>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>>>>> yet lie about this or to try to get away with the strawman 
>>>>>>>> deception
>>>>>>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People here who have recently followed these discussions know 
>>>>>>> that "P
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly stop running unless 
>>>>>>> aborted"
>>>>>>> does not confirm or contradict anything Linz and Strachey have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When P correctly simulated by H meets this criteria
>>>>>>    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input P
>>>>>>    until H correctly determines that its simulated P would never
>>>>>>    stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>
>>>>> Still unproven whther P ever meets those criteria, in particular
>>>>> the last "correctly".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you lack the mandatory prerequisite knowledge to understand
>>>> that this is correct provided zero evidence that this is incorrect.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter. Much less understanding is needed to see that you have
>>> not proven that P ever meets the criteria agreed by Siplser. Equally
>>> clear is that you have not proven that P never meets those criteria.
>>>
>>>> I incorporate by reference
>>>> (a) The x86 language
>>>> (b) The notion of an x86 emulator
>>>>
>>>> (c) I provide this complete function
>>>>
>>>> void DDD(int (*x)())
>>>> {
>>>>    HH(x, x);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00001de2] 55         push ebp
>>>> [00001de3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00001de5] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001de8] 50         push eax         ; push DD
>>>> [00001de9] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>> [00001dec] 51         push ecx         ; push DD
>>>> [00001ded] e890f5ffff call 00001382    ; call HH
>>>> [00001df2] 83c408     add esp,+08
>>>> [00001df5] 5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00001df6] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001df6]
>>>>
>>>> Then I state that No DDD correctly emulated by any
>>>> x86 emulator H can possibly reach its own [00001df6]
>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> To anyone having this mandatory prerequisite knowledge
>>>> (perhaps not you) every x86 emulation of DDD by any
>>>> x86 emulator H continually repeats the first seven lines
>>>> of DDD until it crashes due to out-of-memory error.
>>>
>>> OK, but insufficient.
>>>
>>
>> Try and show what is missing.
> 
> Truth preseving transformations.
> 

See my new post. I will annotate it to address your comment.
Simplified proof that DDD correctly simulated by HHH does not halt



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