Path: ...!news.nobody.at!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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 15:36:27 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:36:28 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da";
	logging-data="1645701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/boVDgulg/fn0idl5f4y+0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eOje0FmD+7fu7BgYrGIDf9px9lw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 8721

On 8/16/2024 3:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:
>>>>>>>>> On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,
>>>>>>>>>>> That is what I said dufuss.
>>>>>>>>>> You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation as
>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,
>>>>>>>>>>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its 
>>>>>>>>>>> caller*
>>>>>>>>>> how *HHH* returns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
>>>>>>>>>>     DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates
>>>>>>>> DDD
>>>>>>>>>>     second level
>>>>>>>>>>       DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
>>>>>>>>>>     HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts
>>>>>>>> voila
>>>>>>>>>> HHH halts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH 
>>>>>>>>> aborts its
>>>>>>>>> simulation [line 5 above],
>>>>>>>>> then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
>>>>>>>>> earlier.  You know that, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
>>>>>>>> reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
>>>>>>>> the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
>>>>>>> wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
>>>>>>> waiting forever.
>>>>>> Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before 
>>>>>> the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
>>> *Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
>>> *when replying to joes*
>>>
>>> On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>  > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
>>>  >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>  >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
>>>  >>>  returns to its caller*>>
>>>  >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
>>>  >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
>>>  >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
>>>  >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
>>>  >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
>>>  >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
>>>  >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
>>>  >>    DDD halts        voila
>>>  >> HHH halts
>>>  >
>>>  > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
>>>  > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
>>>  > then the outer level H would have aborted its
>>>  > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
>>>  > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
>>>  > for the last few months! :) ]
>>>  >
>>>  > So your trace is impossible...
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very 
>> short of memory.)
>> I never said such a thing.
>> I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated 
>> HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH 
>> reached it abort and halted.
>> In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the 
>> abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is 
>> incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by 
>> HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
>>
>> It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or 
>> your memory is indeed very short.
>> Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from 
>> rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.
> 
> That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't 
> "understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / mathematical 
> content.  He can't understand definitions or their role in proofs, or 
> the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being 
> rude or anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of 
> course* PO does not "really read what you write".  Surely you must have 
> at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice any problem 
> with PO's memory.]
> 

I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
of the C programming.

I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

_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]

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted*

Mike might try to change the subject but I doubt if he
would disagree with this basic fact.

*It took me two years to find a way to define correct*
*simulation such that all disagreement looks foolish*

There are more steps to my proof in addition to this
yet the above portion of my proof is a necessary
prerequisite. If people disagree with arithmetic how
are we ever going to get to the subject of algebra?

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