Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
 --- Saving Democracy
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 12:57:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <vpfnhm$jena$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
 <voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
 <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
 <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
 <e174ca1c1cbc58c67ffae3b67b69f63f21a82f86@i2pn2.org>
 <vp69r4$2mdtr$1@dont-email.me>
 <8fa176d46bf5b8c36def9e32ced67a1a3f81bae1@i2pn2.org>
 <vpbhrk$3mfi7$1@dont-email.me>
 <2e999502c40f736a3f3579d23bdb2b42dc74e897@i2pn2.org>
 <vpcurc$irt$5@dont-email.me> <vpd0e5$uj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd3fg$irt$10@dont-email.me> <vpd4ih$2pvp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd6hp$2q85$3@dont-email.me> <vpd7s7$3e5k$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpd8pl$3h9q$1@dont-email.me> <vpd97q$3e5k$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpdaj5$3u9g$1@dont-email.me> <vpdatp$3e5k$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpddgj$3u9g$2@dont-email.me> <vpddqm$3e5k$4@dont-email.me>
 <vpdkhv$5kr2$1@dont-email.me> <vpdks8$5ga3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpdqc8$6bqs$1@dont-email.me> <vpe1g3$7gnd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpflv1$j7qb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 18:57:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3d0437002d06bb71b23761906f180bc";
	logging-data="637674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18CwDkO9nkglJ2WLNc6U9rY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TE7PrPL2g7Pr7yY0kC+y1NZqfsg=
In-Reply-To: <vpflv1$j7qb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7490

On 2/23/2025 12:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/22/2025 8:34 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 2/22/2025 7:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2025 4:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2025 2:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 2:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 01 int F(int i)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03   if (i > 10)
>>>>>>> 04     return 0;
>>>>>>> 05   else
>>>>>>> 06     return F(i+1);
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11   return F(0);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>> 13
>>>>>>> 14 int main()
>>>>>>> 15 {
>>>>>>> 16   F((int)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>>>> 17   return 0;
>>>>>>> 18 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if the address of no_numbers_greater_than_10 is greater than 
>>>>>>>> 10 then 0 is returned right away, otherwise as most 10 recursive 
>>>>>>>> calls will be made before the condition is matched and 0 is 
>>>>>>>> returned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This doesn't change the fact that no_numbers_greater_than_10 
>>>>>>>> correctly
>>>>>>>> simulated by F cannot possibly return so 
>>>>>>>> F(no_numbers_greater_than_10)
>>>>>>>> is correct to report non-halting, which means that there is no 
>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>> number greater than 10.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that you will find more bugs when you try to
>>>>>>> provide the line number by line number execution trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #1 bug F never simulates anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a verified fact that 
>>>>>
>>>>> F never simulates anything when i > 10.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Remember, you agreed that the behavior of X simulated by Y is 
>>>> defined by replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator 
>>>> and running Y(X):
>>>>
>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>  > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>  >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>  >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
>>>>  >>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return"
>>>>  >>> instruction.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an 
>>>> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is non-halting 
>>>> and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>>  >>
>>>>  >
>>>>  > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the behavior of no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F is 
>>>> defined by replacing the code of F with an unconditional simulated 
>>>> and running F(no_numbers_greater_than_10).
>>>>
>>>> The finite string input to F proves that there are no instructions 
>>>> in no_numbers_greater_than_10 that can break the recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> Try to show how no_numbers_greater_than_10 correctly simulated by F 
>>>> can possibly halt.
>>>
>>> Then is ceases to be analogous to HHH(DD) because
>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10() always terminates normally
>>> by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>
>> In other words, when we actually run no_numbers_greater_than_10() it 
>> reaches its own "return" instruction.
>>
>> That means we've now established that the direct execution of a 
>> program (which includes all the functions it calls UNMODIFIED) defines 
>> whether or not it halts.
>>
>> Likewise, when we actually run DD() unmodified it also reaches its own 
>> "return" instruction.
>>
>> Therefore HHH(DD)==0 is wrong.
>>
>>
> 
> _DD()
> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002155] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
> 
> When DD is correctly simulated by HHH according to the behavior
> that the above machine code specifies then the call from DD
> to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return and this correctly simulated
> DD cannot possibly terminate  normally by reaching its own machine
> address 00002155.
> 

Similarly:

0000000000400534 <no_numbers_greater_than_10>:
   400534:	55                   	push   %rbp
   400535:	48 89 e5             	mov    %rsp,%rbp
   400538:	b8 34 05 40 00       	mov    $0x400534,%eax
   40053d:	48 89 c7             	mov    %rax,%rdi
   400540:	e8 a8 ff ff ff       	callq  4004ed <F>
   400545:	5d                   	pop    %rbp
   400546:	c3                   	retq


When no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly simulated by F according to 
the behavior that the above machine code specifies then the call from 
no_numbers_greater_than_10  to F(no_numbers_greater_than_10) cannot 
possibly terminate normally by reaching its own machine address 400545

So F(no_numbers_greater_than_10)==0 is correct, and therefore no natural 
number exists that is greater than 10

Agreed?