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

On 5/5/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 6:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/5/2024 4:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/5/24 5:30 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.
>
We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>
Elements of this set of H/D pairs simulate from 1 to infinite steps of D and each one of them does this in an infinite number of different ways.

>
(this is wrong, as EACH H only simulates its one D one way, so each one doesn't simulate in an infinite number of ways, but I think you are just failing at grammer here
>

>
There are an infinite number of different ways for H to simulate
1 step of D.

>
So?
>

>
*Your system clock is off you responded to my 5:30 post at 4:56*

>
No, you don't seem to understand about TIME ZONES.
>
I guess that is too advanced for you.
>

>

The TWO methods I posted still follow that description and show how H can simulate past the point that you say NO H can get past,
>

>
*This has already been proven to be dishonest*

>
Nope, you seem to be stuck on the example below, which is not either of the two methods

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.
>

I showed how to simulate past the call, but showed how if your statement WAS made to be correct, how it implies a trivial decider could also be considered correct.
>

>
There is no trivial decider that correctly recognizes recursive simulation and correctly decides these inputs

 My trivial decider decided all of them as non-halting.
 

now, since D(D) Halts, just like factorial(5), why do you say that H(D,D) is correct to say it doesn't?
 

>
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
   Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}
>
int factorial(int n)
{
   if (n >= 1)
     return n*factorial(n-1);
   else
     return 1;
}
>

I have mentioned this several times, but I guess you can't understand basic English.
>

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.

 And I'bve told you what you need to say to get that.
 If you are so sure I didn't, it doesn't cost you anything to make the promise.
 If you aren't sure, you need to admit that you claim things without actually knowing them, and promise to stop doing that.
 If you can't, then you need to suffer the consequences of your actions.
 

>

>
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 simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
Can only be interpreted to *D NEVER simulated by H*
through dishonestly.
>
That you repeatedly say you have proof yet do not present
this proof cannot be reasonably construed as truthful.

>
That you keep on saying I haven't, when I have,

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.

 No, I suspect most people who care know what my comment was, and are enjoyiing seeing you squirm.
 

>

and keep on point to a message talking about something different just shows your totally ignorance of what you are talking about.
>

>
The pillow guy that keeps asserting there is evidence
of election fraud knowing full well there there is none
is pulling this same scam.
>
Do you want to live in a Nazi USA because someone is
getting away with your same scam?
>

>
No, but I won't try to stop him doing the same thing that he does.
 > Why do you refuse to look at the evidence put before you,

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.

 They may already know where the message was.
 

>

but instead just insist, like he does, that you must be right without giving any real evidence.
>
You both keep repeating the same disproven "facts".
>

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.

 People know who the liar is, and it isn't me.
 

>

He actually has better grounds, as a lack of evidence showing fraud is not actually proof that there was none, it is a much more complicated "proof" that things were ok.
>
In your case, you need to ignore the simple facts presented before you

>
Give me a freaking time/date stamp otherwise
everyone will know that you are lying.

 This is the cost of you asserting facts without basis.
 

>

for you to keep on making your false claims. YOU have no defense that no proof has been shown, you just ignore it saying it can't be right, because you know what the truth is, because you have gaslighted yourself.
>

>
>