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

On 10/05/2024 02:07, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2024 6:43 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 09/05/2024 04:46, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2024 10:05 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/05/2024 20:05, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:

On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:

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

>
Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of many more simulations that only these.

>
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).
>
No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
past its own line 03.

>
If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
is another question.
>

>
*My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>
I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>
I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
line 932 int DD(int (*x)())

>
HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally separate "I am called in nested mode" code path!
>

>
The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
be a computable function.
>
*Maybe you can settle this*
>
The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>

>
I'll respond with my assessment on this, provided you agree in advance that you won't quote me elsewhere [in other threads/forums] in support of your claims.  Not that I can really enforce

>
..NOTE: not in other THREADS or forums, i.e. NOT in other threads on these newsgroups.  (Just in this specific thread, where what I say will be quoted automatically by your newsreader!  I can't see why you would quote me in other threads anyway other than in some kind of attempt to shut down discussion in your favour...)
>

this, but I think for the most part you are basically honest, and would try to keep an agreement you made on this, if you chose to make one.
>

>
That is really great Mike, you have been a wonderful help.
I will agree not to quote you anywhere else but these two
forums and I am nearly certain that I never quoted anyone
else from these forums anywhere else besides these forums.
>

You understand the reason I ask this:  you are unfortunately completely unable to judge what other people say to you, and as soon as you (mis)interpret the smallest thing as supporting some part of your argument you will (mis)quote "Mike Terry [or whoever] agrees that [something I did not agree to, or some literal quote taken out of context, which misrepresents my actual opinion]."
>

>
OK, so I agree that I will only quote you using the message ID
of your reply with its time/date stamp and I will only quote
you in these forums.

>
My condition is "only in THIS THREAD"...
>
Mike.

 So I cannot post the entire dialogue of everything you
said along with a time/date stamp of your full reply
and its message ID in a different thread in this forum?
 My issue is that too many people in this forum insist
on directly contradicting the easily verified facts
AND THEN CALL ME A LIAR BOUT THIS SAME ISSUE!!!

In effect, you're confirming that your intent is to use whatever I say as a kind of "appeal to authority".  I'll not be posting further.  (Trying to limit how you might use my response was no doubt a Mistake on my part - I stopped responding to you a long time ago for a variety of reasons, and I should have just kept to that...)
Mike.

 I will find what you said about the computability issue
in a few minutes so that you can attest to or rebuke my
range of interpretations of this issue.

??
No need to go over the past - I'm not even sure what computability issue you're referring to.  It really doesn't matter.
The more basic issue here is that you need to argue your own case, not quote other people to try to win or shut down arguments.  If you're not capable of proving your own claims, perhaps they shouldn't have been made (or so persistently defended) in the first place.  But this runs right up against your basic problem - regardless of underlying causes, you /do/ have severe problems understanding abstract ideas, and consequently understanding definitions/proofs/logical reasoning etc., and certainly you don't understand what people are thinking or trying to explain to you.  So you are completely unable to argue your own case, but /you do not see any of that/ either, having somehow convinced yourself that you are the genius outthinking everyone else on whatever topic comes along...  You just go round and round in circles, but I can't see any way out of this for you.
Anyhow, I hope you can sort out all the things you talk of below that seem to be piling up - sometimes it seem that when it rains it really pours!

 I just had hail damage, a refrigerator that quit the night
before surgery, surgery and one other huge issue in the last
few days. I want have an opportunity to retract any inaccurate
characterizations of what you said.
 There are so few people here that are honest so I must
treat them as very special.