Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---

Op 05.mei.2024 om 05:17 schreef olcott:

On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

You are doing better than Alan on this though he doesn't
have a single clue about what execution traces are or how
they work.

>

You should read "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale
Carnegie.  You may not care about the former, but you sure are trying
the latter.  Hint: telling nasty lies about people is not effective.

>
>

The alternative of disparaging my work without even looking at
it is far worse because it meets the

>

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

>

required for libel and defamation cases.

>
No.  There have got to be limits on what one spends ones time on. You

>
None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without looking at what
I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe that I am wrong
on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility is not defamatory.
>

have been maintaining false things over the years to such a degree that
it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect brilliant insights from
you.  For example, you insist that robustly proven mathematical theorems
are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word.
>

>
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x)  // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04   if (Halt_Status)
05     HERE: goto HERE;
06   return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 void main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
Execution Trace
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
Simulation invariant:
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory because anyone
with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can determine that
it is true by verifying that the execution trace is correct.
>
When you say it is false by either not verifying that the execution
trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces are <is>
defamatory.

>
But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one disregarding the evidence.
>
I guess I could file defamatory claims against you.
>

>
It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal in all of
your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were vigorously attempting
to get away with the strawman deception change the subject "rebuttal".

>
But very close to my first part of the reply I indicated that there WAS a detailed description of this at the end, and you replied to that mention, saying that since your statement was categorically true it would be easy to refute, and then you just didn't do so.
>

>
If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully examine it.
Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only
the same ruse as this.
>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
 >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
*Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above)
is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown above)
>

So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were talking about and made yourself just into a liar.
>
YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not really interested in an actual honest dialog.
>
I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually true, as you are going to just assume what you want.
>

>
A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to wade through
all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals" interpreted
*D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated by H*

>
But that isn't what distracted you in that message.
>

>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they "interpret"
*D is simulated by H*
   to mean
*D is NEVER simulated by H*
>
>

>
But 0 steps is a number of steps.
>

>
*I did not say any number of steps*
>
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
 >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*

>
WITHOUT DEFINING EXACTLY WHAT "SIMULATED" means.
>

>
(1) You have already acknowledged that you what it means
by all the times that you did agree that D simulated by H
never reaches its own line 06 and halts.

>
No, D simulated by THIS H (and a very restricted family of related programs), as you have defined it, will not reach its own line 06.
>

>
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>
I have said this many hundreds of times because this shell-game deception has been ridiculous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>

This happens as either said H abort their simulation before the program gets there, or they create an H that just never returns an answer to H(D,D) and thus fail to be a decider. These are two distinct parts of your "family" of H that you like to talk about, that you need to be a bit imprecise about so you can try to mix them up.

>
When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
where N is 1 to 1,000,000 no simulated D every reaches past
its own line 03.
>
When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
where N is 1 to 1,000,000 and H aborts its simulation all of
the nested simulations (if any) immediately totally stop running.
No simulated H ever returns any value to any simulated D.
>

>
(2) What could simulated possibly mean besides the C source-code
of D being interpreted by a C interpreter or the machine-language
of D being emulated by an x86 emulator?

>
Ok, so why doesn't H do that?
>

>
We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>

After all, H doesn't actually simulate the call H instruction, which should do what the instruction does, and enter H, or at least do the equivalent results of calling H(D,D) which is to return 0.
>
Typically, to simulate something means to determine what it will do when it is actually done, but you like to claim that H's simulation of the input doesn't need to match the actual behavior of the program described to it, so clearly you are not using simulate in the conventional meanings.
>
You have EXPLICITLY claimed that just becuase D(D) Halts, doesn't mean that H simulating the description of this machine can't be correct when it says it doesn't.
>
So, it is clear that you somehow have rejected some of the essential characteristic of what a "simulation" means, but refuse to actually define it. The likely cause is that you know you CAN'T precisely define it, as you can't make weasle words to allow the illogical conclusion that you make for the call to H being simulated, without makeing to too obvious that something is very broken with your system.
>

>
All of the above is based on the false assumption that we are talking about something other than this:
>
We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>

>
But what do you mean be "Simulated".
>
What in the definition of simulated allows a call to H that will return 0 be simulated as "never returns"?
>

>
You already understand that infinite recursion never returns.

>
Right, trivially, since it isn't infinite if it does return.
>
So, a recursion call loop that has NOTHING in the loop that can break it, becomes infinite.
>
>

You already understand that recursive simulation is isomorphic to infinite recursion so I can't see how you can say that you don't understand these things an be sincere.

>
But only for UNCONDITIONAL simulation, which H doesn't do.
>

>
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
   return;
}
>
OK we are down to one single point at a time, when that point is
divided into ten more points only one of them at a time we keep
dividing them until your rebuttal looks like ridiculous nonsense
to everyone including yourself.
>
The ONLY point right now is that H(Infinite_Recursion, (ptr)5));
is correct when it reports that Infinite_Recursion() never halts
on the basis that Infinite_Recursion simulated by H never reaches
its return statement.

>
Yes, since Infinite_Recursion has a full unconditional loop back to the original point, it will be a non-halting program and thus no correct simulation of it can reach an end, because the program it is simulating will never reach an end.
>

>
But H does not simulate it forever its simulation
of Infinite_Recursion() is conditional. How it is
that Infinite_Recursion() never halts when H stops
simulating it?

>
Becuase, as you don't seem to understand, the behavior of programs is what they do as ideal mathematical objects on the ideal mathematical machine they are concidered to be run on, NOT what some simulation of them shows.
>

>
Ah so you disagree with UTM's why do disagree with UTM's ?
We must stay on this single point until it is fully addressed.
If it is divided into subpoints the same thing goes for each subpoint.

>
Why do you say I disagree with UTMs?
>

>
The quoted paragraph that I am referring to.
If you disagree with yourself on this paragraph please elaborate.

>
If H doesn't simulate it forever, it just isn't a UTM.
>

 Whoa, Factorial of 5 must simulate forever?
 

Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM except by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for one thing, it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after determining that it will simulate this input forever.
>

 None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps
cannot be said to have simulated those N steps incorrectly
on the basis that it could have simulated N+1 steps.
 

Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops after N steps make it an incorrect simulation.
If I order a diner in the restaurant and only the first few steps are done correctly (writing down the order, bringing the order to the kitchen), but then the operation is aborted, we cannot say that the order was processed correctly, even though any step executed was correct and nobody can point to a step before the abort that was wrong. It is the abort itself that makes it wrong. Similarly, a simulation that aborts is not a correct simulation.
Olcott will probably insist that the waiter did a good job, even if I do not get my diner, because every step of the waiter before he aborted the order was correct.