Path: ...!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
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:49:28 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <v9icl8$f16v$8@dont-email.me>
References: <v9edol$3metk$1@dont-email.me> <v9fe61$3rqao$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9flkh$3se8c$3@dont-email.me> <v9hooa$chqn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:49:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b9b77ee625b8578b747fee4cc5a1452";
	logging-data="492767"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GrB0n1YCspradXNCKsCvV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:N8zu8VnF6Oi1j81M2RTYHsBMETI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9hooa$chqn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3227

On 8/14/2024 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-08-13 13:04:17 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> If DDD does not halt then HHH does not halt.
> 

_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]

The impossibility of DDD emulated by HHH
(according to the semantics of the x86 language)
to reach its own machine address [00002183] is
complete proof that DDD never halts.

This has nothing to do with whether or not HHH
halts.

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