Re: HHH(DDD) does not see the exact same behavior pattern as HHH(Infinite_Recursion)

On 7/28/24 10:25 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/28/2024 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 28.jul.2024 om 05:15 schreef olcott:

On 7/27/2024 7:40 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 27/07/2024 19:14, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Stopping running is not the same as halting.
DDD emulated by HHH stops running when its emulation has been aborted.
This is not the same as reaching its ret instruction and terminating
normally (AKA halting).

>
I think you're wrong, here.  All your C programs are a stand in for
turing machines.  A turing machine is either running or halted. There is
no third state "aborted".  An aborted C program certainly doesn't
correspond with a running turing machine - so it must be a halted turing
machine.
>
So aborted programs are halted programs.  If you disagree, perhaps you
could point out where in my arguments above I'm wrong.
>

>
Aborting is an action performed by a simulator, not the TM being simulated.
>
If we want to count "aborted" as some kind of final status, it will have to be the status of a specific /PARTIAL SIMULATOR's/ simulation of a given computation.  That's not a property of the computation itself, as different partial simulators can simulate the same computation and terminate for different reasons.  Like HHH(DDD) aborts, while UTM(DDD) simulates to completion and so the final simulation status is halts. [Neither of those outcomes contradict the fact that the computation DDD() halts.]
>
If some partial simulator halts when simulating a computation [as with UTM(DDD)] that implies the computation DDD() halts.  But if the simulator aborts, it doesn't say that much (in and of itself) about whether the /computation/ halts.  The halting problem statement is not concerned with simulations or how the simulations end.
>
Every time anyone in these PO threads says "halts" it ought to be 100% clear to everyone whether the computation itself is being discussed, or whether some simulation final status is intended.  (But that's far from being the case!)  Since the halting problem is concerned with computations halting and not how partial simulations are ended, I suggest that PO explicitly make clear that he is referring to simulations, whenever that is the case.  It seems reasonable that readers seeing "halts" with no further clarification can interpret that as actual computation behaviour, as that is how the term is always used in the literature.  Same with other terms like "reach"...
>
So when PO says "DDD simulated by HHH cannot reach its final ret instruction" is he talking about the computation DDD() [as defined mathematically], or its simulation by HHH?  He means the latter, but its far from clear, I'd say!  [I think most readers now have come around to reading it as a statement about simulations rather than the actual computation, which totally changes things...]
>
>
Mike.
>

>
_DDD()
[00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
[0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
[00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002173] 5d         pop ebp
[00002174] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>
It is a verified fact that DDD emulated by HHH 100% exactly
and precisely according to the actual x86 semantics of
the emulated code including the recursive call that causes
HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD cannot possibly get
past it own 0000216b machine address.
>
*Anyone as much as hinting otherwise is not being truthful*
If we remove all of the problematic code then this same
trace still occurs until it crashes from OOM error.
>

>
No matter how much olcott wants it to be correct, or how many times olcott repeats that it is correct, it does not change the fact that such a simulation is incorrect, because it is unable to reach the end.

 It is ridiculously stupid to expect the correct emulation
of a non-halting input to end.

Right. SO why does your supposed "correct emulation" of a input you claim to b on-halting end. Only because you are showing that HHH's emulation is *NOT* a "correct emulation", but only a PARTIAL emulaiton, which doesn't show the behavior of the input after it aborts.

 This is the exact same pattern with Infinite_Recursion()
where there are no conditional branch instructions that
would prevent the first three instructions of
Infinite_Recursion() from endlessly repeating.
 

Nope, becasue a call to Infinite_Recursion is not the same thing as a call to HHH(DDD).
The call to Infinite_Recursion will never end no matter how long you look at the behavior of the program.
THe call to HHH(DDD) will, by your admission, emulate DDD for a while and then abort its emulation and then Return. This is because there ARE conditional branch instructions in the execution path, which goes into HHH.
So, unless you want to try to claim that running forever is exactly the same as talting behaovir of HHH(DDD)< you are stuck with being shown to be a liar.
Now, if HHH was an UNCONDITIONAL emulator, and not a decider, there are arguements that the pattern, while not EXACTLY the same, is close enough that a similar proof could be built. But that requires HHH to be a UNCONDITIONAL emulator, the fact that its emulation is conditioned on its halting deciding adds that conditional branch that breaks the infinite loop.
You are just so stupid you don't see that clear and obvous fact, because you don't even seem to know what a PROGRAM is that can be decided on.
Your problem is that you just made yourself into a self-made ignorant idiot which doesn't actually care about what it true, which has made you

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}
 _Infinite_Recursion()
[0000215a] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[00002162] 5d         pop ebp
[00002163] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0010) [00002163]
 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113934
[0000215a][00113924][00113928] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][00113924][00113928] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113920][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
[0000215a][0011391c][00113924] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[0000215b][0011391c][00113924] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000215d][00113918][00002162] e8f8ffffff call 0000215a ; 3rd line
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 If you cannot see that the above x86 machine code proves that
it will never halt then you can't possibly understand what I
have been saying.
 The first three lines of _Infinite_Recursion() repeat and there
are no conditional branch in that sequence that can possibly keep
it from repeating forever. This exact same pattern is shown below.
 =====
 HHH(DDD)
 _DDD()
[00002177] 55               push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a] 6877210000       push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f] e853f4ffff       call 000015d7 ; call HHH
[00002184] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002187] 5d               pop ebp
[00002188] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002188]

Which CAN NOT be the input for the progream "DDD" as it calls outside of the input, and thus you are proving that you are just a pathetic ignorant pathological liar.

 // executed HHH emulates 1st instance of DDD
New slave_stack at:10388d
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113895
[00002177][00113885][00113889] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][00113885][00113889] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][00113881][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0011387d][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
 // emulated HHH emulates 2nd instance of DDD

But that isn't a correct emulation of the call HHH by ANY criteria.
By the x86 criteria, it must be the instrcuctions of HHH, which need to be part of the input, thus proving your stupdiity.
If by functional equivalence, since HHH is a CONDITIONAL emulation, every step along the way needs to be marked by the fact that the HHH that was called had the option of stopping the emulation before continuing, which shows that the trace is FUNDANMENTALLY DIFFERENT

New slave_stack at:14e2b5
[00002177][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 55         push ebp      ; 1st line
[00002178][0015e2ad][0015e2b1] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; 2nd line
[0000217a][0015e2a9][00002177] 6877210000 push 00002177 ; push DDD
[0000217f][0015e2a5][00002184] e853f4ffff call 000015d7 ; call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
  

Not, if the trace IS correct, and there was no conditionality of the emulation, then that final abort statement is just a LIE, or the proof that you lied before.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't care about what is actually true, but are running your halting-problem scam by the playbook of the election deniers and the climate-change deniers, thus telling them that you agree with their methods, as you use them too.
Sorrty, that just makes you a damned hypocritical liar that is likely destined for an eternity in Gehenna.