Re: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers disagree with basic facts

On 8/16/2024 3:11 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 16/08/2024 07:57, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 21:39 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 1:35 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 15/08/2024 17:30, olcott wrote:

On 8/15/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.aug.2024 om 14:12 schreef olcott:

On 8/15/2024 2:00 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:07:43 +0100 schrieb Mike Terry:

On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 8/13/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/13/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

>

A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.

Nope, it is just the correct PARTIAL emulation of the first N
instructions of DDD, and not of all of DDD,

That is what I said dufuss.

You were trying to label an incomplete/partial/aborted simulation as
correct.
>

A correct simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH is sufficient
to correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited simulation.

Nope, if a HHH returns to its caller,

*Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH returns to its caller*

how *HHH* returns

>

HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated HHH simulates

DDD

    second level
      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference DDD halts

voila

HHH halts

>
You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your simulated HHH aborts its
simulation [line 5 above],
then the outer level H would have aborted its identical simulation
earlier.  You know that, right?

>

Of course. I made it only to illustrate one step in the paradoxical
reasoning, as long as we're calling programs that do or don't abort
the same.
>

>
It is like I always pointed out. The outer HHH cannot
wait for the inner ones to abort because it would be
waiting forever.

Exactly. And when it aborts, it aborts too soon, one cycle before the simulated HHH would abort and halt.

>
Mike corrected you on this. You are wrong.

>
For the record, I did no such thing and Fred is correct.
>

>
*Fred has the same incorrect views as joes*
*Here is where you agreed that Fred is wrong*
*when replying to joes*
>
On 8/14/2024 10:07 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
 > On 14/08/2024 08:43, joes wrote:
 >> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:38:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 >>> *Try to show exactly how DDD emulated by HHH
 >>>  returns to its caller*>>
 >>> (the first one doesn't even have a caller)
 >>> Use the above machine language instructions to show this.
 >> HHH simulates DDD    enter the matrix
 >>    DDD calls HHH(DDD)    Fred: could be eliminated
 >>    HHH simulates DDD    second level
 >>      DDD calls HHH(DDD)    recursion detected
 >>    HHH aborts, returns    outside interference
 >>    DDD halts        voila
 >> HHH halts
 >
 > You're misunderstanding the scenario?  If your
 > simulated HHH aborts its simulation [line 5 above],
 > then the outer level H would have aborted its
 > identical simulation earlier.  You know that, right?
 > [It's what people have been discussing here endlessly
 > for the last few months! :) ]
 >
 > So your trace is impossible...
 >
>
>

>
It is clear that olcott does not really read what I write. (Or is very short of memory.)
I never said such a thing.
I repeatedly told that the simulating HHH aborted when the simulated HHH had only one cycle to go. I never said that the simulated HHH reached it abort and halted.
In fact, I said that the fact that the simulation fails to reach the abort and halt of the simulated HHH proves that the simulation is incomplete and incorrect, because a complete simulation (such as by HHH1) shows that the simulated HHH would abort and halt.
>
It now becomes clear that you either never understood what I said, or your memory is indeed very short.
Give it some time to think about what I say, try to escape from rebuttal mode, instead of ignoring it immediately.

 That's all correct.  Going further I'll suggest that PO really doesn't "understand" /anything/ with an abstract / logical / mathematical content.  He can't understand definitions or their role in proofs, or the role of proofs in establishing knowledge.  I'm not kidding or being rude or anything like that - it's simply the way his brain works.  *Of course* PO does not "really read what you write".  Surely you must have at least suspected this for a long time?!  [I don't notice any problem with PO's memory.]
 

I break my points down to the basic facts of the semantics
of the x86 language and the basic facts of the semantics
of the C programming.
I can't ever get to the point of the computer science
because reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
_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]
<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
     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
*It is a basic fact that DDD emulated by HHH according to*
*the semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly stop*
*running unless aborted*
Mike might try to change the subject but I doubt if he
would disagree with this basic fact.
*It took me two years to find a way to define correct*
*simulation such that all disagreement looks foolish*
There are more steps to my proof in addition to this
yet the above portion of my proof is a necessary
prerequisite. If people disagree with arithmetic how
are we ever going to get to the subject of algebra?
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer