Re: Can D simulated by H terminate normally?

On 4/28/24 2:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 1:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 1:55 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 12:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 9:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/28/24 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/28/2024 8:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 10:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 8:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/27/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/27/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:

Can D simulated by H terminate normally?
>
The x86utm operating system based on an open source x86 emulator.
This system enables one C function to execute another C function
in debug step mode. When H simulates D it creates a separate process
context for D with its own memory, stack and virtual registers. H
is able to simulate D simulating itself, thus the only limit to
recursive simulations is RAM.
>
// The following is written in C
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y)    // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06   int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07   if (Halt_Status)
08     HERE: goto HERE;
09   return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14   D(D);
15 }
>
Execution Trace
Line 14: main() invokes D(D)
>
keeps repeating (unless aborted)
Line 06: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D) that simulates D(D)
>
Simulation invariant
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own line 09.
>
Is it dead obvious to everyone here when examining the execution
trace of lines 14 and 06 above that D correctly simulated by H cannot
possibly terminate normally by reaching its own line 09?
>
>

>
Except that you fail to mention that you have admitted that you are NOT working on the Halting Problem, despite trying to use terminology similar to it, but having stipulated definition that are in conflict with computaiton theory.
>
Note, "keeps repeating (unless aborted)" is a misleading statement, as your H will ALWAYS abort this input, and thus it NEVER will "Keep repeating".
>
You don't like me pointing out the problem because you prefer to be able to LIE to people about what you are doing.
>
You work has NOTHING to do with Halting, as your H/D are not even turing equivalenet to their namesakes in the proof you like to mention.

>
That is the exact verbatim post and the first respondent agreed
and immediately noticed that I was referring to the halting problem.
>
So I will go with what I said, you just don't know C very
well and want to keep that hidden behind rhetoric and denigration.
>
>

>
>
Yes, you couch it to SOUND like the halting problem, but it isn't as you have FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED the meaning of terms.
>
And thus, to act like it is, just makes you a LIAR.
>
Halting is NOT about H being able to simulate it input to the final state. PERIOD.
>

>
I could show how it is but you prefer to believe otherwise and refuse
to go through the detailed steps required.

>
No, you CAN'T, because you have FUNDAMENTALLY changed the question, sinc eyou claim that even though D(D) Halts, that H(D,D) is correct to say not halting.
>

>
It is not my error it is your indoctrination.

>
So, How is H(D,D) saying false correct if D(D) Halts?
>

>
You refuse to go through the mandatory steps.

>
YOU are the only one that says they are "Manditory".
>
That doesn't make them so for me.
>
YOU refuse to explain how a Halting Turing Machine can be correctly decider as "Non-Halting".
>
Your "excuses" all seem to boil down to you just need to lie about what you are actually doing and that you refuse to even learn what the actual rules and language of what you are saying you are doing are.
>

>

SInce the DEFINITION of the quesiton that H, the Halt Decider, is to answer is if the computation describe by its input (that is D(D) ) will halt when run.
>
You have to hide behind obfuscation, blusgter and LIES.
>
Since you don't seem to know that actual meaning of the words you use, as you have even occationally admitted, it is clear who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't.
>
I will also point out that you have effectively admitted that your statements are unsopported as you always fail to provide actual references to accepted ground for your claims.
>
>
>
>

>

>
It is psychotic that people really believes that the principle of
explosion is valid inference even though there is zero doubt the it
derives the non-sequitur error.

>
Nope, that just means you don't understand how logic works.
>
YOU are the psychotic.
>

>
*When we encode the principle of explosion as a syllogism*
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is not a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a butterfly.

>
Nope. And that is because the principle of explosion is NOT a "syllogism"
>
You are again just proving your stupidity.
>

>
The conclusion does not follow from the premises, thus the non-sequitur error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

>
So, which step doesn't is incorrect.
>
Givens:
Proposition A is True.
Proposition A is False.
>

>
The syllogism would be dead right there.
Some A are True
No A are True

>
So, you don't understand what the principle of explosion actually is.
>

>
Some A are True
No A are True
therefore B

>
Which was proven.
>

>
You are indoctrinated into believing that the non-sequitur error
is not an error. The only semantics that passes out of (A ∧ ~A)
is FALSE.

>
And you only get the "non-sequitur" form because The Principle of Explosion is not a Syllogism. It is a THEOREM.
>

>
All A are True
No A are True
Therefore B
>
(1) Is a pair of proper categorical propositions.
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition
(2) That are isomorphic to the Principle of Explosion.
(3) And do form the non-sequitur error.
>

>
In simple words, you are just admitting that you are a stupid idiot, not reading the replies and just reposting your lies.
>
The Principle of explosion is NOT stated as a Syllogism, because the form of a Syllogism can't handle it,

>
I just proved that the syllogism DID handle it. You are trying
to get away with a dictatorial fiat rebuttal to point (2).

>
Then you don't understand what a Syllogism is.
>
It is ALWAYS a pair of statements, each relating two "terms" with one term in common between the two statements, and the conclusion being a relationship between the two other terms.

 There you go. So when we correctly translate the POE into a
syllogism we can see that it is invalid because it never has any relationship to the other two terms.
 

Which just means that the Principle of Explosion can not be reduced to a Syllogism.
LOTS of theorems can not be reduced to Syllogisms.
Syllogisms are just one of the weakest form of logical argument. Useful because they are so simple, but just because something doesn't fit the form doesn't make it invalid.