Re: Simulating termination analyzers for dummies

On 6/19/2024 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/19/24 9:00 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/19/2024 3:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2024 om 18:26 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2024 10:47 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 18.jun.2024 om 17:33 schreef olcott:

On 6/18/2024 10:20 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>
It is a verified fact that serious C people have recently
agreed to the following verbatim statement in the C group.

>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cv4pg5p%24morv%241%40raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org%3E+
>

You either lack this degree of skill in C or are only
interested in playing head games.

>
I have seen the response. It was most certainly not a serious reply.
But you know apparently to little of C to understand that.
Probably, because you are unable to escape from rebuttal mode, even if the truth is obvious.
>

>
I have known C since K&R was the standard and met
Bjarne Stroustrup when he came to our university
to promote his new C++ programming language.
>
*You seem to be willfully ignorant*
>

It was your own proof that showed that in
>
        int main()
        {
          return H(main);
        }
>
>
main halts, whereas H reported non-halting. So, it you were honest you would stop claiming that H is correct.
>

>
That is merely a more difficult to understand version of this
same pathological relationship.
>
int main()
{
   Output("Input_Halts = ", HH0(main));
}
>
_main()
[000020c2] 55         push ebp
[000020c3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[000020c5] 68c2200000 push 000020c2 ; push main
[000020ca] e833f4ffff call 00001502 ; call HH0
[000020cf] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000020d2] 50         push eax
[000020d3] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000020d8] e885e6ffff call 00000762
[000020dd] 83c408     add esp,+08
[000020e0] eb04       jmp 000020e6
[000020e2] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000020e4] eb02       jmp 000020e8
[000020e6] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000020e8] 5d         pop ebp
[000020e9] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0040) [000020e9]
>
  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[000020c2][001036c3][00000000] 55         push ebp
[000020c3][001036c3][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[000020c5][001036bf][000020c2] 68c2200000 push 000020c2 ; push main
[000020ca][001036bb][000020cf] e833f4ffff call 00001502 ; call HH0
New slave_stack at:103767
>
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:11376f
[000020c2][0011375f][00113763] 55         push ebp      ; begin main
[000020c3][0011375f][00113763] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[000020c5][0011375b][000020c2] 68c2200000 push 000020c2 ; push main
[000020ca][00113757][000020cf] e833f4ffff call 00001502 ; call HH0
New slave_stack at:14e18f
[000020c2][0015e187][0015e18b] 55         push ebp      ; begin main
[000020c3][0015e187][0015e18b] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[000020c5][0015e183][000020c2] 68c2200000 push 000020c2 ; push main
[000020ca][0015e17f][000020cf] e833f4ffff call 00001502 ; call HH0
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
[000020cf][001036c3][00000000] 83c404     add esp,+04
[000020d2][001036bf][00000000] 50         push eax
[000020d3][001036bb][00000743] 6843070000 push 00000743
[000020d8][001036bb][00000743] e885e6ffff call 00000762
Input_Halts = 0
[000020dd][001036c3][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
[000020e0][001036c3][00000000] eb04       jmp 000020e6
[000020e6][001036c3][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
[000020e8][001036c7][00000018] 5d         pop ebp
[000020e9][001036cb][00000000] c3         ret           ; exit main
Number of Instructions Executed(10070) == 150 Pages
>

>
It is easier to understand because a print statement was added.
You proved that it halts, but H0 reports non-halting.
So, it produces a false negative.
So, now it has been proved that H, H0, etc produce false negatives, when used to determine halting behaviour, please, stop to call them halt-deciders, or termination-deciders.
They might be "simulation deciders". When returning true, the simulation was correct, when false, the full simulation was not possible.

>
I don't want to discuss your screwy example because I
can't use screwy examples in my paper.
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
>
_DDD()
[000020a2] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[000020a3] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[000020a5] 68a2200000 push 000020a2 ; push DDD
[000020aa] e8f3f9ffff call 00001aa2 ; call H0
[000020af] 83c404     add esp,+04   ; housekeeping
[000020b2] 5d         pop ebp       ; housekeeping
[000020b3] c3         ret           ; never gets here
Size in bytes:(0018) [000020b3]
>
Exactly which step of DDD emulated by H0 was emulated
incorrectly such that this emulation would be complete?
AKA DDD emulated by H0 reaches machine address [000020b3]
>
>

 Why does H0 NEED to be able to correctly simulate its input?
 

Decider must compute the mapping from their finite string
input to the actual behavior that this finite string specifies.
They are not free to imagine the behavior that the authors of
textbooks expect.

Your question is just a Strawman, replacing the OBJECTIVE criteria of the behavior of the machine represented by the input (which inlcudes the code for H0) with the SUBJECTIVE question of what H0 thinks about it.
 And, your H0 doesn't correctly simulate the input, as the *ONLY* correct simulation of that input would be:
 simulate the push ebp
simulate the mov ebp,esp
simulate the push 000020a2
simulate the call 00001aa2
simulate the instruction at 00001aa2
 

I now have a 195 page color-coded execution trace
showing HH0 correctly simulating DDD calling
a simulated HH0 simulating another instance of DDD.
https://liarparadox.org/HH0_(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

since that isn't what you have ever shown as the simulation by H0, you have lost the right to call its simulation "correct".
 Sorry, your argument is just a lie.

*It never has been a falsehood*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer