Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On 5/11/2024 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:It is not a conventional term or the art if you use it in a meaningOn 2024-05-11 02:21:10 +0000, olcott said:We have a simpler way to prove Richard is WRONG
On 5/10/2024 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:If something is vacuously true then it is provably true, so if youOn 5/10/24 7:39 PM, olcott wrote:Vacuously true is a bogus concept.On 5/10/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Right, so why do you lie that H is the SET, and not one element at a time.On 5/10/24 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:One element of any type of set theory set is differentOn 5/10/2024 4:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But the element is different then the set.On 5/10/24 5:43 PM, olcott wrote:A "specific" and "arbitrary" machine is like aOn 5/10/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Well, since you don't have an employer, I guess we can tell who performs better.On 5/10/24 5:11 PM, olcott wrote:Is your employer aware that your memory is this bad?On 5/10/2024 3:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:But there is no Dichotomy, as there is just H, an not something to compare it to.On 5/10/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:*WRONG DICHOTOMY STRAW-MAN DECEPTION*On 5/10/2024 3:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:On 5/10/24 1:49 PM, olcott wrote:*cannot possibly stop running unless aborted is not met*On 5/10/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Aborted after 0 steps which is all that that H does.On 5/10/24 11:50 AM, olcott wrote:*cannot possibly stop running unless aborted is not met*On 5/10/2024 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:You haven't GIVEN a defined SPEC.On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:My H simulated 0 steps of D, of which was ALL of the steps it simulated correctly.On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:*When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:Here's the proof:On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be toOn 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote: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!On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:*My fully operational code proves otherwise*
On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its lineOp 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs whereOn 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of many more simulations that only these.On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote: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).On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:"In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like ZFC thereOn 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enablesWhen you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
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.
you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
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).
is no universal set.
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
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.
4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
is another question.
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)())
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.
1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the direct execution.
That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H possibly
reach line 06 of H proves this.Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an exampleNope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this multiple times.
of D simulated by H:
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
The only definition within Computation Theory, which is the space you started in, and claim to get to, doesn't have "aborted" simulations, so you don't have a defintion of what simulatioin actually means, other than doing something that tells you something about the behavior of what is simulated.
My H does that, by aborting its "simulation" in shows that THIS H did not simulate its input to a final state.
Just the same result that you partial set of H's showed.
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*Right, and simulating zero steps correctly and them aborting means H
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*BY cannot possibly start running**cannot possibly stop running unless aborted is not met*You can start and then immediately stop an not make any progress.
*BY cannot possibly start running*
*cannot possibly stop running unless aborted is not met*
*BY cannot possibly start running*
*cannot possibly stop running unless aborted is not met*
*BY cannot possibly start running*
A bit like your "first point after 0".
You just don't understand how logic works.
And your definition is also illogical, as H either DOES or DOES NOT abort its simulation.
The other thing you compare it to is not H.
"...cannot possibly stop running unless aborted"But *THE* H does one or the other.
*stops running if not aborted or keeps running if not aborted*
Are you in management where slick double-talk can hide this?
*I have repeated time and again that I have always been referring*And how does MAIN call an "Infinite set" of functions?
*to the specific infinite set of H/D pairs specified below*
And how is that an exact implementation of the Linz Proof, were H and H^ are specific (but arbitrary) machines?
very tiny little enormously huge thing.
We can have specific elements of an infinite set such
that every element of this set has common properties.
THAN (not then) the whole set, WELL DUH !!!
Every element of natural numbers > 5 shares that commonRight, but the set of natural numbers n > 5 doesn't have the property that the SET (as a set) is greater than 5, since that property is not a property of the set.
property of > 5.
Just like HALTING is a property of Program, not "sets of programs" so your POOP is just illogical.
*Richard can get this and lies about it*Nope, because "being simulated by" is not a property of the machine iteself, but of the decider looking at it.
*Richard can get this and lies about it*
*Richard can get this and lies about it*
*Richard can get this and lies about it*
Every D simulated by H shares the property that it is
simulated by H.
Every D NEVER simulated by H forms a set that is disjointBut simulating zero steps correctly *IS* simulating ALL steps simulated correctly if you stop before getting to step 1.
from the above set.
You just don't understand the nature of universal qualifiers.
Or the actual general meaning of "simulation"
see "vacuously true" in a positive sentence you may read it as if
it were "provably true". The word "vacuously" means that the proof
is very short.
If something is not vacuously true then it may be otherwise true,
so saning "not vacuously true" does not say very much.
I have used the conventional term-of-the-art {Termination Analyzer}
in the title of my paper since 2023/06/19
*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
I am working on providing an academic quality definition of thisThe definition in Wikipedia is good enough.
term.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.