Re: Hypothetical possibilities --- Complete Proof

Op 01.aug.2024 om 17:49 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 9:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 16:30 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 9:23 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:29 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 8:12 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 01.aug.2024 om 14:20 schreef olcott:

On 8/1/2024 3:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.jul.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:

On 7/31/2024 3:01 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:

On 7/31/2024 3:44 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 31.jul.2024 om 06:09 schreef olcott:

>
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:1038c4
>
We don't show any of HHH and show the execution trace of
of just DDD assuming that HHH is an x86 emulator.

>
This assumption is incorrect if it means that HHH is an unconditional simulator that does not abort.

This algorithm is used by all the simulating termination analyzers:
<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>

>
So, Sipser only agreed to a correct simulation, not with an incorrect simulation that violates the semantics of the x86 language by skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.
>

>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}
>
DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
second line. I switched to DDD correctly emulated by HHH

>
But it has been proven that no such HHH exists that simulates itself correctly. So, talking about a correct simulation by HHH is vacuous word salad.
>

because only C experts understood the above example and we
never had any of those here.

>
There are many C experts that looked at it, but you only got critic, because you keep hiding important properties of HHH, which made the conclusion impossible.

>
The following is all that is needed for 100% complete proof
that HHH did emulate DDD correctly according to the semantics
of the x86 language and did emulate itself emulating DDD
according to these same semantics.

>
You are repeating the same false claim with out any self-reflection. It has been pointed out that there are many errors in this proof.
Why repeating such errors?
>

>
_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]
>
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)

>
The trace stops and hides what happens when 000015d2 is called.
Olcott is hiding the conditional branch instructions in the recursion.
>

>
*Here is the full trace where nothing is hidden*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>
These next lines conclusively prove that DDD is being
correctly emulated by HHH after DDD calls HHH(DDD).

>
It also shows that HHH when simulating itself, does not reach the end of its own simulation.

>
If you weren't a clueless wonder you would understand
that DDD correctly emulated by HHH including HHH emulating
itself emulated DDD has no end of correct emulation.
>

>
You say that only, because you do not understand the difference between two recursions and an infinite number of recursions.

 I was the number one student out of 45 students in an advanced
computer science about the internals of operating systems. Three
of the students that I beat were instructors of other computer
science classes. The lack on knowledge is not on my side.

Sorry to hear that you lost such beautiful skills.

 Not terminating recursive emulation is isomorphic to infinite
recursion.

The non terminating recursive simulation is only in your dreams.
The HHH that aborts terminates after two recursions. That is very different from non terminating.
The HHH, when simulating itself, also aborts after two cycles, where it needed one more cycle to see the terminating behaviour.
Dreams are no substitute for facts, nor for logic.

 

The HHH that has no end is the one in your dreams, the one that does not abort.

 Therefore conclusively proving that it must abort jackass.

That is completely missing the point. Nobody says that without abort it would be any better. You are fighting windmills.
But aborting does not make it correct, because the abort is always premature. It does not matter whether HHH aborts or not. HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
It seems you also lost your ability to learn new things.
I wonder how many times you are going to repeat the same error, without paying attention to the errors pointed out to you.