Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
 non-halting behavior --- Mike --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:07:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v9g7d3$gmc$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$3@dont-email.me> <v9g6rb$cql$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:07:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5789d119f15570941a39cdb59159ffa5";
	logging-data="17100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++WtKsW7VqrMplYtlP9dym"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jXc3voOFkmZvy7kYe3JSoEWH4yA=
In-Reply-To: <v9g6rb$cql$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4191

On 8/13/2024 12:58 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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 objectively correct to say that the first N instructions
were emulated correctly when the first N instructions were
emulated correctly.

Changing my words then providing a rebuttal for these changed
words is a form of intentional deceit known as strawman.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer