Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.in-chemnitz.de!news.swapon.de!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: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 12:29:12 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 278
Message-ID: <v8kt98$3cu69$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v7gl30$3j9fi$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> <449d4de351f2890de028f96a3ab5a758c9ce6e72@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:29:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1a48d50997def039aa1d0a2731ff3c2c";
	logging-data="3569865"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dODf/Xwbk9yP8LITUwlpz"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+k2XKN0WG6F1/ZokLz25W3nHVpI=
Bytes: 15565

On 2024-08-02 23:12:23 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 8/2/24 6:23 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.
>>> 
>>> Since HHH was not given the address of main to start with, this can not 
>>> be the trace that HHH itself is generating and looking at, but is 
>>> instead the trace of the running of that top level HHH.
>> 
>> Well, all PO's trace logs start with main!  Something has to set up the 
>> required computation [aka the required TM + input tape].  That could be 
>> HHH(DDD), or maybe DDD() or whatever.  PO might have done this through 
>> extra invocation arguments to x86utm.exe, and then there would have 
>> been no need to code a main() in his halt7.c user code file.  But that 
>> would be decidedly fiddly, so having a fixed entry function main() is 
>> an ok convenience I'd say.  The main() is not really part of his 
>> computation model, but x86utm traces the lot.
>> 
>> Normally when PO gives code snippets, he includes the main() routine.  
>> In this case it is main calling HHH(DDD), so HHH as you say is the 
>> outer level HHH.  (Later on in the trace we see simulated HHH 
>> entries...)
>> 
>>> Since that shows the trace isn't what he claims it is, nothing it says 
>>> means anything for his argument.
>> 
>> I can't see what PO claims the trace to be.  That trace was taken and 
>> published some weeks ago, and doesn't match up exactly with todays 
>> partial trace - e.g. the addresses of HHH/DDD don't match and so on.  
>> If it's just wrong through being out of date, or because it has the 
>> main() trace on the front, that's not the worst of crimes...
>> 
>> I see upthread that someone pointed out that the filtered trace 
>> "..stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called."  Well, the 
>> full trace does show the instructions of HHH being executed [even if 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========