Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!paganini.bofh.team!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 10:34:28 +0300
Organization: To protect and to server
Message-ID: <vajvi4$2lbmn$1@paganini.bofh.team>
References: <va104l$376ed$4@dont-email.me> <cd375f68f97a737988bab8c1332b7802509ff6ea@i2pn2.org> <va13po$376ed$7@dont-email.me> <d42e5d30ea5f1c067283cb04d8a7293e2117188e@i2pn2.org> <va16bg$38gbh$1@dont-email.me> <va1r6b$3bau7$2@dont-email.me> <va2542$3cvgv$3@dont-email.me> <va46pi$3piab$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: paganini.bofh.team; logging-data="2797271"; posting-host="ArmERdYYIOOJVi41tgCxGQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@bofh.team"; posting-account="9dIQLXBM7WM9KzA+yjdR4A";
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.3
Bytes: 6663
Lines: 148

On 2024-08-21 07:59:46 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:

> Op 20.aug.2024 om 15:18 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/20/2024 5:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 20.aug.2024 om 06:33 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/19/2024 11:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/19/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/19/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> *Everything that is not expressly stated below is*
>>>>>>>> *specified as unspecified*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Looks like you still have this same condition.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I thought you said you removed it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> *It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
>>>>>>>> *the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
>>>>>>>> *running unless aborted* (out of memory error excluded)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But it can't emulate DDD correctly past 4 instructions, since the 5th 
>>>>>>> instruciton to emulate doesn't exist.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And, you can't include the memory that holds HHH, as you mention HHHn 
>>>>>>> below, so that changes, but DDD, so the input doesn't and thus is CAN'T 
>>>>>>> be part of the input.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> X = DDD emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD
>>>>>>>> Z = DDD never stops running
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And neither X or Y are possible.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to
>>>>>>>> DDD and itself. HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Which is irrelevent and a LIE as if HHHn is part of the input, that 
>>>>>>> input needs to be DDDn
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And, in fact,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Since, you have just explicitly introduced that all of HHHn is 
>>>>>>> available to HHHn when it emulates its input, that DDD must actually be 
>>>>>>> DDDn as it changes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thus, your ACTUAL claim needs to be more like:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> X = DDD∞ emulated by HHH∞ according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>> Y = HHH∞ never aborts its emulation of DDD∞
>>>>>>> Z = DDD∞ never stops running
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The above claim boils down to this: (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes that is correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, you only prove that the DDD∞ that calls the HHH∞ is non-halting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not any of the other DDDn
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Your problem is that for any other DDDn / HHHn, you don't have Y so you 
>>>>>>> don't have Z.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> void EEE()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of DDD the same
>>>>>>>> way that HHHn correctly predicts the behavior of EEE.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nope, HHHn can form a valid inductive proof of the input.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It can't for DDDn, since when we move to HHHn+1 we no longer have DDDn 
>>>>>>> but DDDn+1, which is a different input.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You already agreed that (X ∧ Y) ↔ Z is correct.
>>>>>> Did you do an infinite trace in your mind?
>>>>> 
>>>>> But only for DDD∞, not any of the other ones.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you can do it and I can do it then HHH can
>>>>>> do this same sort of thing. Computations are
>>>>>> not inherently dumber than human minds.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But HHHn isn't given DDD∞ as its input, so that doesn't matter.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> All of the DDD have identical bytes it is only the HHH that varies.
>>>> HHHn(DDD) predicts the behavior of HHH∞(DDD).
>> 
>>> Not all HHH can be at the same memory at the same time.
>> 
>> Counter factual. HHH∞ is hypothetical thus takes no memory.
>> HHH and DDD remains at the same physical machine address locations.
>> 
>>> When HHHn is in the memory, then DDD calls HHHn, not HHH∞.
>>> When HHHn is doing the simulation, HHHn is in that memory, therefore, 
>>> it should simulate HHHn, not HHH∞.
>>> They cannot be at the same memory location at the same time, unless you 
>>> are cheating with the Root variable to switch between HHHn and HHH∞, 
>>> which causes HHHn to process the non-input HHH∞ instead of the input 
>>> HHHn.
>> 
>> HHH∞ is hypothetical thus takes no memory. HHHn(DDD) predicts
>> the behavior of a hypothetical HHH∞(DDD) as described below
> Which makes HHHn incorrect, because it should simulate its input, not a 
> hypothetical non-input HHH∞.

HHHn is free to simulate whichever way its author wants. It is correct
if it gives the correct answer for every input and incorrect otherwise.
Whether an answer is correct depends on the problem. If the problem
is not specified there is no correctness.

-- 
Mikko