Path: ...!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 14:20:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <v9gbl8$1i21$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> <v9gaup$17ve$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 21:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5789d119f15570941a39cdb59159ffa5";
	logging-data="51265"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UdKS6enNnXxtYQwdxs7vd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rJHignCPKje+fjqFZRrhdqjaFTk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9gaup$17ve$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4999

On 8/13/2024 2:08 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
> 

It is cheating to provide a rebuttal to the words that I
actually said right now based on any other words that I
said anywhere else.

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

If you diverge the slightest trace from those words you
are cheating.

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