Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 30. May 2025, 01:13:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <101at6j$4bga$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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]
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     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

Date Sujet#  Auteur
29 May 25 * Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect14olcott
29 May 25 +- Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect1dbush
29 May 25 +* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect5Fred. Zwarts
29 May 25 i`* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect4olcott
30 May 25 i `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect3Fred. Zwarts
30 May 25 i  `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect2olcott
31 May 25 i   `- Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect1Richard Damon
30 May 25 +- Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect1Richard Damon
30 May 25 `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect6Ross Finlayson
30 May 25  `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect5olcott
30 May 25   `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect4Richard Damon
31 May 25    `* Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect -- mathematical induction3olcott
31 May 25     +- Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect -- mathematical induction1Richard Damon
1 Jun 25     `- Re: Disagreeing with tautologies is always incorrect -- mathematical induction1Fred. Zwarts

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal