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: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 18:37:10 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v52aum$jkbi$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v50o2t$2fh98$2@dont-email.me>
 <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:37:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="643442"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v51dc8$2jmrd$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5363
Lines: 110

On 6/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/20/2024 3:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 20.jun.2024 om 02:00 schreef olcott:
>>> This shows all of the steps of HH0 simulating DDD
>>> calling a simulated HH0 simulating DDD
>>>
>>> https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>> *Some of the key instructions are color coded*
>>> GREEN---DebugStep Address
>>> RED-----HH Address
>>> YELLOW--All of the DDD instructions
>>> CYAN----Return from DebugStep to Decide_Halting_HH
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>> [000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>> [000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
>>> [000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
>>> [000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
>>> [000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
>>> [000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>>>
>>> Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
>>> incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
>>> AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If the simulation of a program with a loop of 5 iterations is aborted 
>> after 3 iterations, all instructions are correctly simulated. 
>> Nevertheless, it is an incorrect simulation, because it should 
>> simulate up to the final state of the program.
>>
> 
> It would be helpful if you answer the actual question being asked
> right here and thus not answer some other question that was asked
> somewhere else.

Why, you aren't?

You seem to think you are God or something that gets to set the rules.

YOU ARE NOT.

> 
>> Similarly, if a simulator which aborts after 2 cycles of recursive 
>> simulation of it self, it simulates only 1 of the 2 cycles of itself. 
>> So, it is incorrect, not because one instruction was simulated 
>> incorrectly, but because it did not simulate up to the final state of 
>> the simulated self.
>>
> 
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
>    HERE: goto HERE;
> }
> 
> It also looks like you fail to comprehend that it is possible
> for a simulating termination analyzer to recognize inputs that
> would never terminate by recognizing the repeating state of
> these inputs after a finite number of steps of correct simulation.

Right, but they don't do it by "Correctly Simulating" the input, but by 
a PARTIAL simulation that provides the needed information to prove that 
an ACTUAL CORRECT (and complete) simulation of that input would not halt.

Not your incorrect indication that some OTHER input would not halt.

> 
>> In other words, H0 is required to halt. If it does halt indeed, than a 
>> correct simulation can show the 'ret' instruction. 
> 
> If you look at the 195 page execution trace you will see that
> the directly executed H0 does reach its ret instruction and
> DDD correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly reach its ret
> instruction in any finite number of steps.

You mean the one that isn't the trace of the simulation of H0(DDD)?

> 
>> We know that your simulation cannot do that. Your own words explain 
>> why it can't: the simulated self runs one cycle behind the simulator. 
>> That explains why the simulation is incorrect and aborts too soon.
>>
> 
> Every expert in the C language that has reviewed this in the C forums
> and by personal email has confirmed that H0 must abort its simulation
> of DDD to prevent its own non-termination. This seems to confirm your
> lack of sufficient technical competence.

So? That isn't the question. THe question is once you have defined your 
H0, will the input built by the template on THAT H0 halt or not.

Your problem is you put the cart before the horse, and forget about the 
horse.

> 
>> So, when you ask which step was emulated incorrectly, you only show 
>> that you don't understand what emulation is.
>> Stop talking about it. It is over your head.
>>
>> I am afraid that these simple facts are over your head. I wonder what 
>> your reaction will be:
>> Shouting, complaining about change of subject, claiming that I do not 
>> understand it, or again a baseless repetition of the claim?
>> Whatever, it is not probable that it will show any insight in this 
>> matter with a reasonable response.
>