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

On 5/7/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>

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.
>
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.
>
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.

>
When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of pairs
you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean anything.
>

>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>

>
And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>

>
Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated by H*
The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be construed
as complete proof of huge election fraud.

>
But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads to the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a machine that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>

>
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

>
>
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was refering to,

>
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

>
>
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>
>
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was refering to,

>
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
>
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.

  You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
 As I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
 

Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth that
would win a defamation case.
The you claim that I am a liar and do not provide your
basis for this constitutes additional evidence of defamation.
I suspect that you already know you have no basis thus
your intent is purely malevolent.
Proving the "actual malice" of defamation cases need
not show your mental state or intent it only need show
that you showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Because I am not a public figure a preponderance of
evidence is enough to win my case.

You just don't understand what Truth means.
 Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
 Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then I can stop refuting you.
  The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
 

>

and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
>
You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then I can stop refuting you.
>
>
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>

>

and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar by saying it is.
>
You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then I can stop refuting you.
>
>
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>

>

Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they neglect that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud and that the rules of logic say the person asserting the existance of something has the burden of proof.
>
Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>
>

>
Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
NOT telling the truth.

>
Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>
As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you will stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>
If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure enough to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a liar.
>

>

If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>

>
Is your memory really that bad?
>
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 }
>
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls.
>
AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>
This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
H simulates itself simulating D(D).

>
So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>
CHECK.
>
Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>
>

>

Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

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