Path: ...!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 21:08:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <v9gaup$17ve$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9g7d3$gmc$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:08:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08d0c038a70e10a3591d5262135e84da";
	logging-data="40942"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JmJfBn9LlgwNOdw0bNVc7"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oBj6xPpAflhyknQr8qZbYMhtJj4=
In-Reply-To: <v9g7d3$gmc$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4866

Op 13.aug.2024 om 20:07 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
> 

*You* are changing words.
A few lines above *you* said:
 >>>>>>> It is true that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot
 >>>>>>> possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.

Here you are not talking about a few correctly simulated instructions, 
but about the simulation of a program.
Now you say that you are not talking about 'DDD correctly simulated by 
HHH', but that HHH only made a good start when correctly simulating only 
the first N instructions.

We can agree that HHH made a good start in the simulation by simulating 
N instructions, but it failed to complete the simulation.

I am not changing your words, but I wonder whether you remember and 
understand your own words.