Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<<

On 5/7/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2024 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 11:40 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>

The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
stop running unless aborted.
>
Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
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 int main()
10 {
11   H(D,D);
12 }
>
*Execution Trace*
Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>
*keeps repeating* (unless aborted)
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.
>
The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.

>
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>

>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).

>
"In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like ZFC there
is no universal set.

>

>
This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated steps of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive simulations of H simulating itself simulating D(D). Every time Lines 1,2,3 are simulated again defines
one more level of recursive simulation.
>
1st element of H/D pairs 1 step  of D  is simulated by H
2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01

>
Ok, and I can make an H that simulates its D to the final state.

>
Liar
>

>
Was PROVEN.
>
Are you willing to put up or shut up, or don't you beleive your own claim?
>

 You are simply lying just like the pillow guy.
It was never proven and you know it was never proven.
The pillow guy is having all of his assets confiscated.
 

Right, because he at least had the strength of belief to put up.

If it was ever proven you could write is down again
or give a time/date stamp. That you refuse to do this
is sufficient evidence to conclude that you are lying.

Yes, I could, but it

 

The fact you are unwilling to make that move just shows that you are just a pathological liar.

 I am willing to look at your "proof". That you are
unwilling to provide it is sufficient evidence that
you are lying.
 

Are you willing to put up or shut up.
WE are told not to

It is possible that you believe that you have proof.
Without seeing what you claim to be proof I cannot
find your error.
 To the best of my knowledge such a proof is categorically
impossible.
 

But was given. DO you believe strong enough to put up or shut up?
"Best of my knowledge" is not a condition for Truth!
As long as you try to hold to that, I will continue to work to frustrate you.
Are you are least willing to never again say that no one has proven you wrong? You should, since that statement is just a lie, so saying it just makes you a liar.