Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 21:40:05 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 165 Message-ID: References:

<9f3112e056ad6eebf35f940c34b802b46addcad4@i2pn2.org>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 21:40:07 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16"; logging-data="2468882"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1OHrPQ6daKmVq/BNrTfxr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:209CTs7ik8zzedqP2ZBWZX31ssE= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 9140 Op 01.aug.2024 om 17:49 schreef olcott: > On 8/1/2024 9:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 01.aug.2024 om 16:30 schreef olcott: >>> On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language >>>>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55 push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; >>>>>>>>>>>>> push DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; >>>>>>>>>>>>> call HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>> New slave_stack at:1038c4 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of >>>>>>>>>>>>> of just DDD assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an >>>>>>>>>>>> unconditional simulator that does not abort. >>>>>>>>>>> This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination >>>>>>>>>>> analyzers: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an >>>>>>>>>> incorrect simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 >>>>>>>>>> language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting >>>>>>>>>> program. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>> second line. I switched to DDD correctly emulated by HHH >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But it has been proven that no such HHH exists that simulates >>>>>>>> itself correctly. So, talking about a correct simulation by HHH >>>>>>>> is vacuous word salad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> because only C experts understood the above example and we >>>>>>>>> never had any of those here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are many C experts that looked at it, but you only got >>>>>>>> critic, because you keep hiding important properties of HHH, >>>>>>>> which made the conclusion impossible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The following is all that is needed for 100% complete proof >>>>>>> that HHH did emulate DDD correctly according to the semantics >>>>>>> of the x86 language and did emulate itself emulating DDD >>>>>>> according to these same semantics. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are repeating the same false claim with out any >>>>>> self-reflection. It has been pointed out that there are many >>>>>> errors in this proof. >>>>>> Why repeating such errors? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored >>>>>>> at:1138cc >>>>>>> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55 push ebp ; >>>>>>> housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; >>>>>>> housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>>>>>> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call >>>>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>>> >>>>>> The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called. >>>>>> Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the >>>>>> recursion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Here is the full trace where nothing is hidden* >>>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf >>>>> >>>>> These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being >>>>> correctly emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD). >>>> >>>> It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach the >>>> end of its own simulation. >>> >>> If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand >>> that DDD correctly emulated by HHH including HHH emulating >>> itself emulated DDD has no end of correct emulation. >>> >> >> You say that only, because you do not understand the difference >> between two recursions and an infinite number of recursions. > > I was the number one student out of 45 students in an advanced > computer science about the internals of operating systems. Three > of the students that I beat were instructors of other computer > science classes. The lack on knowledge is not on my side. Sorry to hear that you lost such beautiful skills. > > Not terminating recursive emulation is isomorphic to infinite > recursion. The non terminating recursive simulation is only in your dreams. The HHH that aborts terminates after two recursions. That is very different from non terminating. The HHH, when simulating itself, also aborts after two cycles, where it needed one more cycle to see the terminating behaviour. Dreams are no substitute for facts, nor for logic. > >> The HHH that has no end is the one in your dreams, the one that does >> not abort. > > Therefore conclusively proving that it must abort jackass. That is completely missing the point. Nobody says that without abort it would be any better. You are fighting windmills. But aborting does not make it correct, because the abort is always premature. It does not matter whether HHH aborts or not. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. It seems you also lost your ability to learn new things. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========