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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:25:05 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <v9pmp0$1r8ik$2@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>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 10:25:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3ceb905fd6a8594bcad71e2b037dd84d";
	logging-data="1942100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19WyH4EV28HQLEB15rxea7K"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iD83Zq1wd2crlKOJZFkot9bGWzk=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8683

Op 16.aug.2024 om 22:36 schreef olcott:
> 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>

Again the same joke. We have proven it incorrect already so many times.

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

And the simulation that failed to reach the end of an aborting and 
halting HHH is simply incorrect.