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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard
 admits his error
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 07:47:26 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 11:47:26 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3814158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6052
Lines: 101

On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *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*
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified fact 
>>>> is just a LIE.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly 
>>>> simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the 
>>>> behavior of the direct execution of the input as required by the 
>>>> Halting Problem, so you admit you have been LYING every time you 
>>>> imply that it is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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*
>>>>
>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that*
>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior*
>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction*
>>> *and simulates H simulating H*
>>>
>>
>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, 
> 
> *This H does do it*
> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D
> as the above line of code requires.
> 
> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code
> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly
> simulated by H.
> 

WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return statement?

We KNOW that when D(D) will be directly executed, and it calls H(D,D) 
just like main did, that H(D,D) will return 0, and thus D(D) will reach 
its final return.

Thus, H is just wrong about the direct execution of its input.

For any input that is actually based on the Linz proof, if the decider 
that the input program calls says its input is non-halting, that input 
program will halt.

H, to be able to say it "correctly simulated" the input, must either 
simulate the call instructions, and all the instructions in H (and never 
again see any instructions of D, unless it gets to the point of 
simulating H's return).

And, to be able to correctly say that the input is non-halting, it needs 
to be able to ACTUALLY PROVE that the trace it has seen can only come 
from programs that are non-halting.

THus, H can NOT abort its simulation before the call to H, and return 
non-halting, as it knows (or should know if it isn't programmed by an 
idiot) that this means that the CALL H it say will return, but it has no 
idea what will happen after that, so it can not prove the input is 
non-halting.

It might be able to prove non-POOPing, with POOP being defined as 
simulatable by the decider to a final state, but that isn't a legal 
"function" for a decider since there is no such mathematical function 
for it to try to compute the mapping of. (Said function would need to 
take a triple, of descritions of Decider, Machine, and input, and would 
be asking if a given decider could answer the question, not THIS decider.