Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 19:13:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 66 Message-ID: <101at6j$4bga$2@dont-email.me> References: <1019v06$3u8nj$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 02:13:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73dc11aa65be162e0b0150944dd1d14a"; logging-data="142858"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2r3gLvZxLnU50wgkzkgoz" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:BGPn4Bx8sQTRz/PJVNsiL4rvlKI= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250529-4, 5/29/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On 5/29/2025 7:05 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 05/29/2025 08:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> HHH is a simulating termination analyzer that uses >> an x86 emulator to emulate its input. HHH is capable >> of emulating itself emulating DDD. >> >> HHH is executed within the x86utm operating system >> that enables any C function to execute another C >> function in debug step mode. >> >> *Here is the fully operational code* >> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >> >> void DDD() >> { >>    HHH(DDD); >>    return; >> } >> >> _DDD() >> [00002192] 55             push ebp >> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp >> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192 >> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH >> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 >> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp >> [000021a3] c3             ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >> >> >>      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 >> >> It is a tautology that any input D to termination >> analyzer H that *would never stop running unless aborted* >> DOES SPECIFY NON-TERMINATING BEHAVIOR. >> >> Simulating Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D >> https://www.researchgate.net/ >> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >> >> > > No it's not. > > (Was, "disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect".) > > It's the _deductive_ analysis that makes for the > "analytical bridges" to escape an "inductive impasse". > If by inductive impasse you are referring to mathematical induction you might be right. If you are referring to logical induction then you are wrong. So far I have not been able to make a proof by mathematical induction that I am correct. The closest that I got is that for any value of N when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH the emulated DDD never reaches its own "ret" instruction final halt state. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer