Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred

On 8/16/2024 6:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-15 12:59:30 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 8/15/2024 3:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 14.aug.2024 om 23:08 schreef olcott:

On 8/14/2024 3:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 14/08/2024 18:45, olcott wrote:

On 8/14/2024 11:31 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:42:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/14/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-13 13:30:08 +0000, olcott said:

On 8/13/2024 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/12/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its* *own
"return" instruction final halt state, thus never halts*
>

Which is only correct if HHH actuallly does a complete and correct
emulation, or the behavior DDD (but not the emulation of DDD by HHH)
will reach that return.
>

A complete emulation of a non-terminating input has always been a
contradiction in terms.
HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
state.

>
That is not a meaningful prediction because a complete and unlimited
emulation of DDD by HHH never happens.
>

A complete emulation is not required to correctly predict that a
complete emulation would never halt.

What do we care about a complete simulation? HHH isn't doing one.
>

>
Please go read how Mike corrected you.
>

>
Lol, dude...  I mentioned nothing about complete/incomplete simulations.
>

>
*You corrected Joes most persistent error*
She made sure to ignore this correction.
>

But while we're here - a complete simulation of input D() would clearly halt.

>
_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]
>
A complete simulation *by HHH* remains stuck in
infinite recursion until aborted.

>
It is aborted, so the infinite recursion is just a dream.

>
All simulating termination analyzers are required
to predict what the behavior would be when the
emulation is unlimited (never aborted) otherwise
they could never report on the behavior of this function:
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
Also something that you consistently ignore is that
HHH is not reporting on its own behavior. HHH is only
predicting whether or not an unlimited emulation of
DDD would reach the "return" instruction of DDD.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

 Actually HHH does not report at all. HHH just returns one value for
some inputs and another vaule for other inputs. HHH does not tell
how those values correlate with any features of the input. It is
the user's problem to interprete the inputs. The author of the
program should tell what the inputs mean but the user should be
aware that the infromation given by the author may be incorrect.
The author has not proven anything abut the interpretation of
the answers by HHH.
 

I must go one step at a time.
So far most people have not understood the first step.
What correct simulation is and how it is correctly measured.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer