Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H

On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:

The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
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.

>
Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>
>

>
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.

>
Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>

>
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.

>
Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods were discussed a long time back)
>

>
The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
calls that H.

>
Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next.
>

>
I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>
We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>
We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>
We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>
H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
1 ∞ steps of D.

>
Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that machine would be simulating.
>

  I am not talking about my H
I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
 The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
...
The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
...
All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
 None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
ever reach past their own line 03.
 

But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H instruction?
My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D, and reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you coded in your H.