Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 19:58:01 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <v9g6rb$cql$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me> <v9fr90$3u3of$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ftsp$3uffi$1@dont-email.me> <v9g0im$3u3of$5@dont-email.me>
 <v9g22t$3uffi$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 19:58:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="88fe018fd7c65de78f82e53bbf822309";
	logging-data="13141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180cl7IAPP75ENaQ7fJb25L"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1eRe5tmy2Rc/e382zpaOKyPq8qk=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v9g22t$3uffi$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3929

Op 13.aug.2024 om 18:36 schreef olcott:
> On 8/13/2024 11:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 17:25 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 9:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 13.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 8/13/2024 5:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-13 01:43:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We prove that the simulation is correct.
>>>>>>> Then we prove that this simulation cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its final halt state / ever stop running without being 
>>>>>>> aborted.
>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusive proves this is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thus when we measure the behavior specified by this finite
>>>>>>> string by DDD correctly simulated/emulated by HHH it specifies
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Input to HHH(DDD) is DDD. If there is any other input then the 
>>>>>> proof is
>>>>>> not interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The behviour specified by DDD on the first page of the linked article
>>>>>> is halting if HHH(DDD) halts. Otherwise HHH is not interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any proof of the false statement that "the input to HHH(DDD) 
>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>> non-halting behaviour" is either uninteresting or unsound.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> Contradiction in terminus.
>>>> A correct simulation is not possible. 
>>>
>>> *YOU JUST DON'T GET THIS*
>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
>>> the semantics of the x86 language is stipulated to be correct.
>>
>> You don't get that you cannot stipulate that something is correct. 
> 
> It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
> of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
> an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
> incorrect.
> 
> If you can't agree to that anything else that you say is moot.
> 

It is objectively incorrect to say that a simulation is correct when it 
only simulated the first N instructions correctly.
It is twisting the meaning of words to say that the simulation is 
correct, if only the first N instructions are correctly simulated and 
the next M instructions, up to the end are skipped.
So, I do not disagree that the simulation made a correct start, but 
after that it failed to reach the end of the simulation.