Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:35:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <v8jmvr$31nt0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$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> <v8ibf5$2p7ho$1@dont-email.me>
 <s3CdnbweXt8ohDD7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <a287d1fc2c1fc90d4381e46eae05287b96e801b9@i2pn2.org>
 <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 00:35:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6697133516c971b81fd53169bb6a94ea";
	logging-data="3202976"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18f0e66fttXDd9s0CkN0HTk"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VoixHgILjmBqnKGU0zixw6un2K8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <-Vednah5VvbtwTD7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 15817

On 8/2/2024 5:23 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 02/08/2024 19:25, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/2/24 1:39 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2024 11:12, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-01 13:29:24 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> On page 36 of that "trace"
>>>>     [0000128c][0010379f][00000018] e8e6f4ffff call 00000777
>>>> is not followed by the trace of 00000777. Instead the trace continues
>>>> with the next instruction after the return without any comment about
>>>> the omission. Meaning of 00000777 is not told.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 777 is the address of Allocate, which is one of PO's "primative ops" 
>>> within his "computing model". (Similar to his DebugStep().)
>>>
>>> It is implemented inside x86utm.exe (his COFF obj code runner), not 
>>> in the user code DDD/HHH/etc. in the obj file, and so we would not 
>>> expect to see any trace entries for its internals.  When the op 
>>> concludes, rax has the address of the allocated memory, which is 
>>> consistent with how a normal function would have returned the address.
>>>
>>> You can say correctly that PO has not explained this, but then he 
>>> provided the full trace under protest, so it's understandable that he 
>>> has not previously explained everything in it.  I'm surprised that 
>>> his response to your post was both to ignore the question and accuse 
>>> you of playing sadistic head games, as the question was perfectly 
>>> sensible.
>>>
>>> You can look up the 777 address in the listing at the start of the 
>>> trace and it's there along with a bunch of other routines which 
>>> appear to just return without doing anything - those are all PO's 
>>> primitive ops.  If you feel a need to understand exactly what they 
>>> do, you'll need to check his source code!  (Although for Allocate 
>>> there is no big surprise...)
>>>
>>>
>>> So your observation isn't really a problem beyond not being properly 
>>> explained.  An actual problem seen in his trace data is that the 
>>> simulation of DDD does not track the behaviour of the unsimulated 
>>> DDD. I.e. his simulation is incorrect.  (PO knows about that but 
>>> claims it doesn't matter, although on other occasions he still claims 
>>> the simulation is correct.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> But the bigger error that totally negates this trace is if you at 
>> where it begins, it is at program address 00002197, which just the 
>> page before is shown to be the address of _main.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========