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

On 5/9/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/9/2024 1:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.mei.2024 om 21:23 schreef olcott:

On 5/8/2024 4:07 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mei.2024 om 23:23 schreef olcott:

On 5/7/2024 3:40 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mei.2024 om 21:05 schreef olcott:

On 5/7/2024 1:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.mei.2024 om 17:40 schreef olcott:

On 5/7/2024 6:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/24 3:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-06 18:28:37 +0000, olcott said:
>

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).

>
"In the universe" is not a set. In typical set theories like ZFC there
is no universal set.

>

>
This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
These H/D pairs can be enumerated by the one to ∞ simulated steps of D and involve zero to ∞ recursive simulations of H simulating itself simulating D(D). Every time Lines 1,2,3 are simulated again defines
one more level of recursive simulation.
>
1st element of H/D pairs 1 step  of D  is simulated by H
2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01

>
Is this the definition of the infinite set of H? We can think of many more simulations that only these.

>
This template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs where
each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>

>
This template does not define any H. So,

>
The template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>

it does not define a H/D pair

>
When by "define" you mean provide all of the source-code of H
you are right. That is not what I meant. I cannot provide
all of the source-code for an infinite set of functions.
>

either. The enumeration might be part of a definition for a set of H functions, but the question was whether the enumeration defines the whole set. If so, why is it limited to this enumeration?
>

>
The template specifies an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
This includes implementations of H that play tic-tac-toe.
It does not include any D not simulated by H.
It does not include and D(D) that does not call this H.
>

In particular since the H as presented is not a pure function,
but uses hidden inputs. If hidden inputs are allowed, it is easy
to construct very different H functions, e.g., H functions for
which the number of steps differ at each simulation level.

>

>

>
So, since olcott does not define H and he did not reject the idea of functions with hidden inputs,

>
I stopped reading right here.
Functions with hidden inputs are not allowed.
>
Since it is understood that we have only been talking about
computable functions there was no need to get more specific
than this.
>
Mike acknowledged that a machine can watch any of the changes
to any internal state of the machine it is simulating and these
are not hidden inputs. My simulating termination analyzer can
be built on this basis.

>
Olcott refuses to define H. Each time someone comes with an example that refutes his claim he adds a new restriction to eliminate the example. His infinite set of H is shrinking, so his 'proof' becomes less interesting each time.
>
Olcott admitted that his H uses the address of H to recognize that a recursive simulation starts. So, he himself, uses hidden inputs. So, if hidden inputs are not allowed, his own H is not allowed.
>

 *New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*
*New aim is 100% air tight accountability on both sides of the dialogue*

In other words, you have too many previously proven wrong claims that you have lost track of the errors, so you want to waste everyone else's time, but as shown below, you won't put in the effort to do your own work.

 My words were never meant to withstand the most vigorous intentional
misinterpretation. Within the assumption of an honest dialogue on both
sides the words that I say below are much more precise than actually
needed for any mutually honest dialogue.

No, they are too imprecise.

 These words are entirely self-contained thus any reference to anything
outside of the scope of these words is construed as a dishonest attempt
to divert away from the truth.
 

In other words, you are admitting that because they do not actually fully define the problem, that you can't fully define the problem.

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 }
 Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
 

Which has been proven incorrect.
Your "claim" isn't proven here, and, since you have specifically excluded anything not in this post, you are just admitting that your logic is based on unsubstantiated claims.
Note, refering to "Simple software engineering verified facts" is counter to your claim that these words are entirely self-contained.
It has been clear that you are NOT an expert on "Simple Software Engineering" and what it shows.
You are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about or what you words mean.
For instance, what is your definition of "simulation", since to use simulation as a replacement for Halting determination requires it to be a full unaborted simulation, but it is clear from you descriptions that this is not what you mean.
If you are going to try to restict response to what you have written here, you need to include your own reasoning too, and include ALL of gthe needed definitons (which you still haven't even tried to provide).
For instance, what restrictions are there on what H can be/do, you have given ZERO requirement, which also goes back to not defining what "simulation" means.
It seems clear that you just don't understand the need to really define what you actually mean, and maybe don't understand HOW to define things sufficiently.