Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 5/3/2024 2:33 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/3/2024 9:08 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/3/2024 4:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-02 14:43:45 +0000, olcott said:

 

[ .... ]

 

This is not computer science it is only software engineering.

 

Therefore not convincing.

 

We must have agreement on verified facts before proceeding
otherwise people leap to the conclusion that I must be wrong
on the basis of not paying attention to what I am saying.

 

They say you are wrong on the basis of their superior education and
knowledge, as well as by reading what you write.

 

I have found that it is actually merely pure bluster.

 You are the only person here who says that.  You are mistaken, probably
on account of your inferior education and knowledge.
 

When reasoning is provided it is nonsense.

 You are patently unqualified and unable to distinguish reason from
nonsense.
 

Richard "interpreted"
---D(D) simulated by H--- as ---D(D) NEVER simulated by H---

 You completely missed his point.  Of course returning a "simulation"
after a small number of steps is nonsense.  He was pointing out that this
is what you are doing too, so what you are doing is nonsense, too.
 

You calling your (a) sentence "a verified fact" is you lying.

 

The fact that no one but Richard ever tried to provide
a counter-example showing that this is false

 A counter example to verification?  What's that supposed to mean?  Your
lie consists of asserting that your sentence (a) is verified.  It is
clearly not - it is highly dubious and controversial.
 

(a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

 It is not so verified.
 

*Is evidence that no counter-example exists*

 Your logic is at fault, here.  The lack of a counter example is no proof
of a proposition.  The existence of a counter example is proof of the
negation of the proposition.
 

That you keep saying that I am wrong without providing any
counter-example is the pure bluster that my new system
of dialogue uncovers.

 The burden of proof is on you.  You haven't proven (or "verified") it at
all.
 

You know full well that it is at best controversial, and likely highly
problematic.  If you were to define things fully, and talk in
non-vague language, something like your (a) might come to be regarded
as a fact.  We're some distance away from that happening.

 

*Tell me what you think is missing from this*

 

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 }

 A detailed specification of H, for a start.  On that depends whether or
not your "verified fact" is a fact or is nonsense.
 

Since I am referring to the infinite set of every H/D pair such that D
is simulated by H it is impossible to provide complete details.
I must refer to all of these elements because many people have tried
to use the shell-game switching from one element to another.

We are examining the behavior of D(D) for every possible H/D
pair where 1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H.

 What is N?  Note that Richard has done just this by taking N to be zero.
 

You can't tell it is a natural number without being told?
I didn't use N in Richard's version. I added from 1 to N steps to
make deliberate misconstrual more difficult.
Richard "construed" "D is simulated by H" to mean
"D is NEVER simulated by H"

*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D) that simulates D(D)

 

*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
Line 01
Line 02
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.

 That needs a proof, something which cannot exist without a detailed
specification of H.
 

*The proof is the dead obvious execution trace*
When D is simulated by H the instructions are executed in
sequential order. Did you think they were executed in random order?
Do I have to tell you that they are not executed in random order?

(a) It is a verified fact that for every possible H/D pair where
1 to N steps of D(D) are simulated by H that this simulated D(D)
cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

 

(b) Rebuttals must show a counter example where 1 to N steps
of D(D) are simulated by H and the simulated D(D) reaches past
its own line 03.

 Not at all.  The lack of a proof, or even a rigorous description, of the
simulation renders a rebuttal superfluous.
 

That you don't seem to know what execution traces are and
how they work seems quite telling.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer