Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic
Date : 24. May 2024, 23:03:33
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <v2qvb5$1vblp$4@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/24/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/24/2024 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 5/24/24 6:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 24.mei.2024 om 03:44 schreef Richard Damon:
On 5/23/24 1:04 PM, olcott wrote:
typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int D(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         H(D,D);
12         return 0;
13       }
>
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by pure function H. This was done because many
reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly switch which H/D pair
was being referred to.
>
*Correct Simulation Defined*
    This is provided because every reviewer had a different notion of
    correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
    A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates at least one
    of the x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
    instructions of D.
>
    This may include correctly emulating the x86 instructions of H in
    the order specified by the x86 instructions of H thus calling H(D,D)
    in recursive simulation.
>
*Execution Trace*
    Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D); H(D,D) simulates lines 01, 02, and 03
    of D. This invokes H(D,D) again to repeat the process in endless
    recursive simulation.
>
>
Questions:
>
By your definiton of "Correct Simulation", you do realize that you have broken connection between the simulaiton not completing and the program described by the input not halting?
>
Also, you do realize that by your requirement on H just being a "pure function" that does NOT say that you H qualified to be the computational equivalent for a Turing Machine?
>
That due to your "strange" definition of what D is, you are putting yourself outside of the grounds of "Computation Theory", as that deals with the behavior of specific PROGRAMS, and not the "Program Templates" like your D, our the "Infinite set of H/D pairs"?
>
Also, your "templagte D" is NOT built per either the Linz or Sipser rules, as both of those had D built with a COPY of H, which is one of your problems with a "Pure Function" as the equivelent. You have shown that your H fails to meet the requirements of a Turing Machine equivalent, as you can't (or it seems you can't) make equivalent copies, where all copies always give the same answer for the same inputs. This is a fundamental property of Turing Machines, which is why just bing a "Pure Function" isn't good enough.
>
These issus need to be handled or acknowledged, before agreement on your question, as you have shown a history of taking a statement and twisting it (perhaps not intentionally, but because you don't understand what was being communicated) so we need to have a firm understand of what you mean and evidence that you accept the limititation causes by your altered definitions from the problem that you initially claimed to have started on.
>
Of course, it also means that even if/when you get your agreement, you are no closer to your halting proof, as you have shown that you undestand that you conditions actually tell you NOTHING about the actual behavior of halting.
>
>
If olcott wants to be closer to the Linz or Sipser rules, he could do so with a small modification: use different names for H. Use H1 when called by main and use H2 when called by D. H1 and H2 are not required to be exact copies of each other, but only to be functionally equivalent. By doing so, a lot of useless discussions could be avoided.
>
Yes, he could, but when it was proposed that we make D call its own identical copy of H, he rejected it saying it wasn't allowed.
>
Of course, the reason it isn't allowed is that it makes his method of detecting that D calls (a copy of) H not work and his whole method falls apart, as his H just never answers.
 A copy of D crashes the libx86emu emulator unless the copy
is very small having less code than the full D.
 
That is very strange, unless you have configured the emulator for very small memory space, and that just shows a limitation to your computation implementation, so, you are just admitting that you tools can't handle the logic system.
That IS the requirement to be able to claim you are working per the specification.
And how were you able to define a new copy H1 to look at H1(D,D) if you couldn't instead have H(D,D) look at an D that called H1(D,D) as its copy? That should have had the exact same memory issue.
I think you have been caught in an inconsistance.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
23 May 24 * Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?186olcott
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?23Richard Damon
24 May 24 i+* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?10olcott
24 May 24 ii`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?9Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8olcott
24 May 24 ii  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?7Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 ii    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 ii      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 ii       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 ii        `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?12Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i i   `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?6olcott
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?5Richard Damon
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?4olcott
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?3Richard Damon
24 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2olcott
25 May 24 i      `- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
24 May 24 +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?154Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 i`* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?153olcott
24 May 24 i `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?152Richard Damon
24 May 24 i  `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?151olcott
24 May 24 i   `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?150Richard Damon
24 May 24 i    `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?149olcott
25 May 24 i     +- Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?1Richard Damon
25 May 24 i     `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?147olcott
25 May 24 i      `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?146Richard Damon
25 May 24 i       `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?145olcott
25 May 24 i        `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?144Richard Damon
25 May 24 i         `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?143olcott
25 May 24 i          +* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?140Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i`* D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06139olcott
25 May 24 i          i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06138Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06137olcott
25 May 24 i          i   +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06134Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06133olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06132Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06131olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06130Richard Damon
25 May 24 i          i   i    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06129olcott
25 May 24 i          i   i     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06128Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 064olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 063Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i      i    `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06121olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06120Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06119olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06118Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06117olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06116Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06115olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06114Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i              `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06113olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i               `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06112Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06109olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                 `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06108Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 066olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 065Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i i`- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                  i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 061Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                  `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?101olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?100Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                    `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?99olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                     `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?98Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                      `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?97olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                       `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Dishonest?96Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                        `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---95olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                         `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---94Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                          `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---93olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                           `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 ---92Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            +* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof4olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i`* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof3Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof2olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                            i  `- Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz proof1Richard Damon
26 May 24 i          i   i                            `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz87olcott
26 May 24 i          i   i                             `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 06 --- Linz86Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                              `* A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩85olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                               `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩84Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩83olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                 `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩82Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩4olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  i  `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                  `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩77olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   +* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩3Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i`* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩2olcott
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   i `- Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩1Richard Damon
27 May 24 i          i   i                                   `* Re: A simulating halt decider applied to the The Peter Linz Turing Machine description ⟨Ĥ⟩73olcott
25 May 24 i          i   `* Re: D correctly simulated by pure function H cannot possibly reach its, own line 062Alan Mackenzie
26 May 24 i          `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?2Fred. Zwarts
24 May 24 `* Re: Can you see that D correctly simulated by H remains stuck in recursive simulation?8Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal