Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Proof that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior
 than DD(DD) STEP(1)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:15:46 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <v47jd2$isl9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v428vv$2no74$2@dont-email.me> <v43ib7$38hnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4628o$6ero$1@dont-email.me> <v468qt$7uvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v470f0$fv9v$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 21:15:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9a8e7ad34187a14f6e3e5ac3c886fbb2";
	logging-data="619177"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LdzZjgseQKqyvAFhgBIFF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zgVHmrdVtbEPxY7DmXAYvE0wS6U=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v470f0$fv9v$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6441

Op 10.jun.2024 om 15:52 schreef olcott:
> On 6/10/2024 2:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 10.jun.2024 om 07:17 schreef olcott:
>>> On 6/9/2024 1:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 08.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>> Before we can get to the behavior of the directly executed
>>>>> DD(DD) we must first see that the Sipser approved criteria
>>>>> have been met:
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>  > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
>>>>>  > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
>>>>>  > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try to show how this DD correctly simulated by any HH ever
>>>>> stops running without having its simulation aborted by HH.
>>>>
>>>> Stopping at your first error. So, we can focus on it. Your are 
>>>> asking a question that contradicts itself.
>>>> A correct simulation of HH that aborts itself, should simulate up to 
>>>> the point where the simulated HH aborts. That is logically 
>>>> impossible. So, either it is a correct simulation and then we see 
>>>> that the simulated HH aborts and returns, or the simulation is 
>>>> incorrect, because it assumes incorrectly that things that happen 
>>>> (abort) do not happen.
>>>> A premature conclusion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS*
>>>
>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>
>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same
>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions
>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below).
>>>
>>> _D()
>>> [00000cfc](01)  55                      push ebp
>>> [00000cfd](02)  8bec                    mov ebp,esp
>>> [00000cff](03)  8b4508                  mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000d02](01)  50                      push eax       ; push D
>>> [00000d03](03)  8b4d08                  mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>> [00000d06](01)  51                      push ecx       ; push D
>>> [00000d07](05)  e800feffff              call 00000b0c  ; call H
>>> [00000d0c](03)  83c408                  add esp,+08
>>> [00000d0f](02)  85c0                    test eax,eax
>>> [00000d11](02)  7404                    jz 00000d17
>>> [00000d13](02)  33c0                    xor eax,eax
>>> [00000d15](02)  eb05                    jmp 00000d1c
>>> [00000d17](05)  b801000000              mov eax,00000001
>>> [00000d1c](01)  5d                      pop ebp
>>> [00000d1d](01)  c3                      ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
>>>
>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the
>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine
>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D*
>>>
>>> H does not ignore that instruction and simulates itself simulating D.
>>> The simulated H outputs its own execution trace of D.
>>>
>>>
>> On 05.jun.2024 at 15:59 (CET) olcott proved that in the example
>>
>>  > int main()
>>  > {
>>  >    Output("Input_Halts = ", HH(main,(ptr)0));
>>  > }
>>
>> main halts and HH reported a non-halting behaviour. This means that 
>> when HH is used as a test for halting, it produces a false negative.
>>
> 
> I just proved that D correctly simulated by H has different
> behavior than the directly executed D(D) and you ignored it.
> 
> 

There is no D in the example where your proved that HH produces a false 
negative.

So, I can repeat what you removed:

Olcott is rather silent about this result, probably, because in this 
case he can not make a difference between the direct execution and the 
simulation. In the D case he argues that the order of D and H makes a 
difference. When D starts and calls H would be different from when H 
starts and simulates D. In the above example, it is not possible to 
change the order.

Since olcott himself has proven that HH produces a false negative, why 
does he continue to claim that there should be a difference between 
direct execution and simulation? This is again a false negative.
HH, nor H can be used as a test for halting of a program, at best as a 
test for halting of olcott's simulator, but is not interesting for most 
people.