Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- stupid rebuttal ---

Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:

On 7/30/2024 10:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/30/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/30/2024 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/30/24 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/28/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-07-27 14:45:21 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 7/27/2024 9:28 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/27/2024 1:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

If a simulator correctly simulates a finite number of instructions
where x86 program specifies an execution of an infinite number of
instructions then the simulation deviates from x86 semantics at the
point where the simulation stops but the x86 semantics specify
countinuation.

>
>

In other words you believe that instead of recognizing a
non-halting behavior pattern, then aborting the simulation
and rejecting the input as non-halting the termination
analyzer should just get stuck in recursive simulation?

>
You're doing it again.  "In other words" is here a lie; you've just
replaced Mikko's words with something very different.
>

>
He just said that the simulation of a non-terminating input
is incorrect unless it is simulated forever.

>
I said it deviates form the x86 semantics. I didn't say whether it is
incorrect to deviate from x86 semantics.

>
The measure of DDD correctly emulated by HHH
    until HHH correctly determines that its emulated DDD would never
     stop running unless aborted...
>
is that the emulation of DDD by HHH
*DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM THE X86 SEMANTICS*

>
Which frst means it must emulate per the x86 semantics, which means

>
>

the call to HHH must be followed by the emulation of the x86 instructions of  HHH, not something else.
>

>
*The call to HHH HAS ALWAYS BEEN FREAKING FOLLOWED*
*by the emulation of the x86 instructions of HHH*

>
Then why don't you show it then
>

>
It seems best proven by this source-code
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
This level of detail was never required because we
could always see from the trace of DDD that it must
have been a call to an x86 emulator or we would
never have gotten to the first line of DDD again.
>
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
We can see from the first page of the trace on
page 38 of the file that DDD calls HHH(DDD) and
the next line is the address of HHH.

>
But that call is from MAIN not DDD.
>

 Ah you are right. So now you see what I mean.
They are all mixed together just like I expected
The first five lines of HHH are on pages 44-49
 That is why I always presented it this way.
 _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]
 _main()
[00002192] 55         push ebp
[00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000021a2] 50         push eax
[000021a3] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000021a8] e8b5e5ffff call 00000762
[000021ad] 83c408     add esp,+08
[000021b0] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000021b2] 5d         pop ebp
[000021b3] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0034) [000021b3]
   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. In fact, it is a simulator with conditional branch instructions, that aborts its simulation after a few recursive cycles.
Probably olcott hides this trace on purpose to hide the conditional branch instructions.

 *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)
 If the emulated call to HHH(DDD) from the emulated DDD wasn't correct
then how the hell did it get to the first line of DDD shown below?
 [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
*Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped*

An incorrect message, probably because of the false assumption the HHH is an unconditional simulator that never aborts, where it is known to be a conditional simulator that aborts after two cycles.
Olcott is dreaming again of a HHH that does not abort and runs forever.
Dreams are no substitute for logic proofs.
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 of a halting program.