Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 ---

On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]

>

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

You are doing better than Alan on this though he doesn't
have a single clue about what execution traces are or how
they work.

>

You should read "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale
Carnegie.  You may not care about the former, but you sure are trying
the latter.  Hint: telling nasty lies about people is not effective.

>
>

The alternative of disparaging my work without even looking at
it is far worse because it meets the

>

https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html

>

required for libel and defamation cases.

>
No.  There have got to be limits on what one spends ones time on. You

>
None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without looking at what
I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe that I am wrong
on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility is not defamatory.
>

have been maintaining false things over the years to such a degree that
it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect brilliant insights from
you.  For example, you insist that robustly proven mathematical theorems
are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the word.
>

>
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 void 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.
>
Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory because anyone
with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can determine that
it is true by verifying that the execution trace is correct.
>
When you say it is false by either not verifying that the execution
trace is correct or not knowing what execution traces are <is>
defamatory.

>
But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one disregarding the evidence.
>
I guess I could file defamatory claims against you.
>

>
It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal in all of
your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were vigorously attempting
to get away with the strawman deception change the subject "rebuttal".

>
But very close to my first part of the reply I indicated that there WAS a detailed description of this at the end, and you replied to that mention, saying that since your statement was categorically true it would be easy to refute, and then you just didn't do so.
>

>
If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully examine it.
Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only
the same ruse as this.
>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
 >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
*Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above)
is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown above)
>

So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were talking about and made yourself just into a liar.
>
YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not really interested in an actual honest dialog.
>
I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually true, as you are going to just assume what you want.
>

>
A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to wade through
all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals" interpreted
*D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated by H*

>
But that isn't what distracted you in that message.
>

>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
 >
 > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your definitions.
 >
 > It means that
 >
 > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
 >     return 0;
 > }
 >
 > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible simulate
 > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H is all
 > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>
One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they "interpret"
*D is simulated by H*
   to mean
*D is NEVER simulated by H*
>
>

>
But 0 steps is a number of steps.
>

>
*I did not say any number of steps*
>
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
 >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop running unless
 >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior to H. When
 >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D halting.
>
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*
*Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated by H*

>
WITHOUT DEFINING EXACTLY WHAT "SIMULATED" means.
>

>
(1) You have already acknowledged that you what it means
by all the times that you did agree that D simulated by H
never reaches its own line 06 and halts.

>
No, D simulated by THIS H (and a very restricted family of related programs), as you have defined it, will not reach its own line 06.
>

>
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>
I have said this many hundreds of times because this shell-game deception has been ridiculous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>

This happens as either said H abort their simulation before the program gets there, or they create an H that just never returns an answer to H(D,D) and thus fail to be a decider. These are two distinct parts of your "family" of H that you like to talk about, that you need to be a bit imprecise about so you can try to mix them up.

>
When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
where N is 1 to 1,000,000 no simulated D every reaches past
its own line 03.
>
When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
where N is 1 to 1,000,000 and H aborts its simulation all of
the nested simulations (if any) immediately totally stop running.
No simulated H ever returns any value to any simulated D.
>

>
(2) What could simulated possibly mean besides the C source-code
of D being interpreted by a C interpreter or the machine-language
of D being emulated by an x86 emulator?

>
Ok, so why doesn't H do that?
>

>
We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>

After all, H doesn't actually simulate the call H instruction, which should do what the instruction does, and enter H, or at least do the equivalent results of calling H(D,D) which is to return 0.
>
Typically, to simulate something means to determine what it will do when it is actually done, but you like to claim that H's simulation of the input doesn't need to match the actual behavior of the program described to it, so clearly you are not using simulate in the conventional meanings.
>
You have EXPLICITLY claimed that just becuase D(D) Halts, doesn't mean that H simulating the description of this machine can't be correct when it says it doesn't.
>
So, it is clear that you somehow have rejected some of the essential characteristic of what a "simulation" means, but refuse to actually define it. The likely cause is that you know you CAN'T precisely define it, as you can't make weasle words to allow the illogical conclusion that you make for the call to H being simulated, without makeing to too obvious that something is very broken with your system.
>

>
All of the above is based on the false assumption that we are talking about something other than this:
>
We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
*Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated by H*
>

>
But what do you mean be "Simulated".
>
What in the definition of simulated allows a call to H that will return 0 be simulated as "never returns"?
>

>
You already understand that infinite recursion never returns.

 Right, trivially, since it isn't infinite if it does return.
 So, a recursion call loop that has NOTHING in the loop that can break it, becomes infinite.
 

You already understand that recursive simulation is isomorphic to infinite recursion so I can't see how you can say that you don't understand these things an be sincere.

 But only for UNCONDITIONAL simulation, which H doesn't do.
 

void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
   return;
}
OK we are down to one single point at a time, when that point is
divided into ten more points only one of them at a time we keep
dividing them until your rebuttal looks like ridiculous nonsense
to everyone including yourself.
The ONLY point right now is that H(Infinite_Recursion, (ptr)5));
is correct when it reports that Infinite_Recursion() never halts
on the basis that Infinite_Recursion simulated by H never reaches
its return statement.

Just as a recursion loop is infinite only if the loop never stops itself, so with the simulation loop.
 In particular, it means that if the "simulator" is actually a DECIDER, then the recursive "simulation" is only infinite if at no stage will ANY of the simulators decide to stop simulating.
 The slight trick to this compared to the infinite recursion, is that with recursion, only the current inner most layer can stop the loop, but with simulation, ANY of the layers of simulation can stop the whole stack.
 

>

You are just caught in a LIE.
>

>
If you are pretending to not understand that infinite recursion
never returns it is not me that is the liar hare.
>

 As I explained, you are playing with words. Your problem is that you confuse your nesting conditional simulation with the unconditional recursion loop.
 So you LIE.
 

>

By some acceptable definitions, the zero step counts.
>

>
No that is bullshit and you know it.
There is no way that "I ate lunch" can be interpreted
as "I did not eat lunch".

>
Maybe not for those words.
>

>
*D is simulated by H*
  cannot be correctly construed as
*D is NEVER simulated by H*

>
So, you don't understand that in logic, For ALL X, can include the case of 0 x?
>

>
Let drop this endless circle.

 Go ahead. If you are going to start to actually put in some requirement on your analyzer that you initially refused to do, and require that it must analyze at least 1 step, the trivial version simulates for one step and them aborts, saying that (since it does abort) that its simulation can not reach the end and thus it can correctly say its input is non-halting.
 YOUR H can't use the argument that no H could get past there, because it has been shown that some do, and thus H can only argue that because ITS simulation didn't get there, it was right to do so.
 

>

Thus, a analyzer that correctly simulates all of the steps of the input that it looks at, until it has the information it needs to produce its answer, can, within that definition, simulate 0 steps

>
NO IT CAN FREAKING NOT
>
void test()
{
   return;
}
>

 Why?
 Until you define what rule my trivial decider is breaking that your H isn't, you have no grounds to complain.
 That is the whole point. Without YOU making a REAL FORMAL DEFINITION of what you are claiming to be doing, your logic is just useless.
 My guess is all of this is just beyound your understanding, because I don't think you have enough understand of what formal requirements actually are, because it seems most of your "study" is in the informal philosophical soft-science part of the theories, not the formal side which has the strict rules.
 

>

(since all were correct since none of them were simulated incorrectly) and if that gives it the information it needs to make the answer, just give it.
>
So, your claim, while it may make some "common sense" isn't strictly true.
>

>

But "I ate all my lunch" could be a true statement if you ate nothing, because you didn't have a lunch.
>
So, to simulate until you make your decision, could involve ZERO simulation if you made you decision before you started.

>
That sure seems to be what you are doing.
First you decide that I must be wrong
then you glance at some of my words.
>

>
Until you DEFINE what it means to for "H to simulate D",

>
It is the ordinary meaning of the word.
It does not mean that H will bake a cake.
It does not mean that H will jump up and down.

 So, you are just admitting that your H isn't a simulating Termination analysis program because it just fails to simulate the call H instruction according to the ordinary meaning of the word. Since H's "analysis" of what THAT call H would do doesn't match what it actually would do makes it wrong.
 

>
It means that H will either interpret a finite number
of the instructions specified by the source-code of D
of H will emulate a finite number of the machine-language
instructions of D.

 Right, as did my 1 step analyser. So, if you claim that to be wrong, so is H.
 

>
You are running out my clock man I go into surgery again
next week.

 No, YOU are running out your clock, by refusing to handle the steps that need to be handled.
 YOU are trying to insist on something that I have shown has problems, You really do need to make a better foundation for your arguement, which means you need to actually spend time to define what you are doing.
 If you can't, you are just doomed to fail anyway.
 

>

in a way that allows H to do what you do with the call H instruction, you can't use "definitions", since you don't have one.
>
Is a car a race car if it never runs a race?
 > Yep.
>
Your problem is you don't seem to understand the essential nature of the problems, so you just lie.
>

This reply of yours seems to be finally getting back on
track of an actual honest dialogue.
>

>
>

>

 

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer