Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see...
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:55:00 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <v8iadk$2p1af$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me> <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8cpti$1gav5$1@dont-email.me> <v8dng8$1lmkb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 11:55:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0af577114287205e85e5f67e1545bc25";
	logging-data="2917711"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/R3Xz2dVnZIMjiiIOMmtUI"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eeSelGQ8GkHXkHhVOYkhPu4YJDM=
Bytes: 5023

On 2024-07-31 16:07:34 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/31/2024 2:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-30 14:21:02 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
>>>>> behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
>>>>> inputs.
>>>> 
>>>> Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
>>>> say what pattern the see.
>>> 
>>> *Its all in the part that you erased*
>>> 
>>> *Infinite_Recursion correctly emulated by HHH*
>>> *THREE lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
>>> [0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>> [0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>> [0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>> [0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>> [0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>> [0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>> 
>>> *DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
>>> *FOUR lines repeat with no conditional branch instructions*
>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
>>> [00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>> [00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>> [0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>> [00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
>>> [00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
>>> [0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
>>> [0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>> 
>> As that part does not show the anwer it seems best to assume that they
>> do not see the same pattern or the pattern is not a real non-halting
>> behaviour pattern. Of course, if a proof is ever presented, we may need
>> to reconsider, but it is very unlikely that any such proof will ever
>> be presented.
>> 
> 
> A proof is any sequence of steps such that the conclusion
> is a necessary consequence of its basis.
> 
> Proving that DDD correctly emulated by HHH matches the
> infinite recursion behavior pattern.
> (a) The semantics of the x86 language.
> (b) the design of HHH provided below.
> (c) The definition of infinite recursion provided below.
> 
> *Infinite recursion behavior pattern*
> An emulated sequence of instructions that has no conditional
> branch instructions in this sequence is exactly repeated when
> it calls the same function with the same parameters again.
> As long as the called function can be determined to never
> return this proves infinite recursion.

You have not proven that there is no conditional instructions
in the repeated cycle.

> HHH continues to emulate DDD until DDD halts* or DDD proves
> that it must be aborted.

In particular, you must prove that this determination does
not involve any conditional instructions.

> This proves that no emulated HHH can
> possibly return to any emulated DDD, thus DDD never *halts.

It does not prove anything as long as it is unproven itself.

> *Halts terminates normally by reaching its own "ret" instruction.

Not the "halts" of the Halting Problem. A halting computation is one
that specifies a sequence of "configurations" (sensu Lintzi) so that
everyone except the first is the result of application of the rules
to the previous state and the last one is one where no rule is applicable.

-- 
Mikko