Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
 --- Saving Democracy
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:46:08 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <vpj0c1$1fvqe$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <vpfnhm$jena$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgded$nkbd$1@dont-email.me> <vpgdn8$nlei$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgh33$o4p7$1@dont-email.me> <vpghkq$o82o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgk2q$okhu$1@dont-email.me> <vpgo94$p8he$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgoia$p9vl$1@dont-email.me> <vpgrdl$tdkf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpgtb3$tiun$2@dont-email.me>
 <b81438405ef9268d7cbebfefbc09d9ae81f2b64d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:46:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f1bdbe2bf9fd53383ef617592ba422f";
	logging-data="1572686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fZEHfORFLfgaVva8mW5iY"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FtXdsNeCzGGt6VMbLUxhz0/wOw0=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250224-8, 2/24/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <b81438405ef9268d7cbebfefbc09d9ae81f2b64d@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10524

On 2/24/2025 3:34 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 23 Feb 2025 22:42:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/23/2025 10:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2025 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2025 9:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 2/23/2025 9:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 7:22 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 8:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 6:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/23/2025 11:57 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I Only understand Intel format assembly language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It corresponds to the following C code:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int no_numbers_greater_than_10()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>     return F((uintptr_t)no_numbers_greater_than_10);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> So if DD is non halting, then by the same criteria
>>>>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is non-halting
>>>>>>>>> Agreed?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I cannot see any way that you explained that the above invocation
>>>>>>>> does not always halt. Because of the huge bug in earlier code it
>>>>>>>> seems that you may be simply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> no_numbers_greater_than_10 is structured exactly the same way as
>>>>>>> DD. What the code of the function F does isn't really relevant
>>>>>>> because your halting criteria replaces all of it with an
>>>>>>> unconditional simulator as the basis for a decision.  What matters
>>>>>>> is that it returns 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not going to talk about your example any more.
>>>>> I'll take that as your admission that you know my example proves you
>>>>> wrong.
>>>> With such a major bug initially in your example I am assuming that you
>>>> don't understand it.
>>> You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what the code of F
>>> is.  As you yourself said:
>>>
>>> On 9/17/22 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>   > A halt decider must predict what the behavior of its input would be
>>>   > in the hypothetical case that it directly executed its input. The
>>>   > means for it to do this are unspecified, thus unconstrained:
>>>   > (a) Static analysis (b) Partial simulation (c) Wild guess
>>>
>> Don't freaking quote what I said in 2022.
> Do you renounce it?
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========