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
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:36:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <v8g6hi$26s53$7@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$1@dont-email.me> <v7led6$kacj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lsg5$luh0$5@dont-email.me> <v7nm9m$1433k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7ofe7$17h8r$6@dont-email.me> <v7qfu0$1m6vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7r040$1onhe$3@dont-email.me> <v7vlbj$2ofet$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80a2u$2rabc$4@dont-email.me> <v825jo$39i9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82u9d$3dftr$3@dont-email.me> <v8306v$3c7$1@news.muc.de>
 <v83161$3dftr$11@dont-email.me> <v84udt$3rp4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bc6j$159av$1@dont-email.me>
 <ea673a5b4ed43fbddf938c69bd013b0cf2ca325d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8c6kb$1de3l$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>
 <v8cde0$1ecgo$1@dont-email.me> <v8ctgt$1gbu7$4@dont-email.me>
 <v8dkc3$1kii7$3@dont-email.me> <v8e55v$1nrnh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8e9vu$1oqd7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fftq$22ege$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8fuj5$24rl1$10@dont-email.me> <v8g1j7$24u77$6@dont-email.me>
 <v8g2jl$26d7d$1@dont-email.me> <v8g5oq$26s53$5@dont-email.me>
 <v8g658$276fl$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:36:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16";
	logging-data="2322595"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19roaiWon+xgWZRzt94E4hX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X2vh4mW3NqBPQUzL2/a5n+66Wu8=
In-Reply-To: <v8g658$276fl$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 7804

Op 01.aug.2024 om 16:30 schreef olcott:
> On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>>>>>>>   address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>>>>>>>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; 
>>>>>>>>>>> push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; 
>>>>>>>>>>> call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of
>>>>>>>>>>> of just DDD assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an 
>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator that does not abort. 
>>>>>>>>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination 
>>>>>>>>> analyzers:
>>>>>>>>> <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 words 
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an 
>>>>>>>> incorrect simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 
>>>>>>>> language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting 
>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>> second line. I switched to DDD correctly emulated by HHH
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it has been proven that no such HHH exists that simulates 
>>>>>> itself correctly. So, talking about a correct simulation by HHH is 
>>>>>> vacuous word salad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> because only C experts understood the above example and we
>>>>>>> never had any of those here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are many C experts that looked at it, but you only got 
>>>>>> critic, because you keep hiding important properties of HHH, which 
>>>>>> made the conclusion impossible. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The following is all that is needed for 100% complete proof
>>>>> that HHH did emulate DDD correctly according to the semantics
>>>>> of the x86 language and did emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>> according to these same semantics.
>>>>
>>>> You are repeating the same false claim with out any self-reflection. 
>>>> It has been pointed out that there are many errors in this proof.
>>>> Why repeating such errors?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call 
>>>>> HHH(DDD)
>>>>
>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the recursion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Here is the full trace where nothing is hidden*
>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>>
>>> These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being
>>> correctly emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD).
>>
>> It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach the end 
>> of its own simulation. 
> 
> If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand
> that DDD correctly emulated by HHH including HHH emulating
> itself emulated DDD has no end of correct emulation.
> 

You say that only, because you do not understand the difference between 
two recursions and an infinite number of recursions.
The HHH that has no end is the one in your dreams, the one that does not 
abort.
Here we talk about the HHH that aborts after two recursions. When 
simulating *that* HHH correctly (e.g. by HHH1), it is clear that it 
halts and does not need to be aborted.
The simulation of the HHH that aborts, does not need to be aborted!
Dreams are no substitute for facts, nor for logic.
You seem to be a slow learner and probably you will repeat the same 
error another thousand times.