Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #333681 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 409 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:30 +0800
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:41 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:14 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 12:18 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 19:32 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 10:58 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:09 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 12:39 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 11:23 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-10 07:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1ghd2$4b9k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333818 |
Op 08.mei.2024 om 15:07 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
>
> *My fully operational code proves how it works*
>
> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>
> HH(DD,DD) determines that its input will never halt
> by simulating itself simulating it and seeing that
> this creates the exact same prior state of DD.
>
>> functions with hidden inputs, we can construct a H that keeps track
>> of > the simulation level. So, imagine a H that has as hidden input
>> not only
>> its own address, but also the address of an integer value, the
>> simulation level, initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments
>> the level and when it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can
>> construct a H that, when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates
>> infinitely, but when it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon
>> as it would start to simulate itself.
>> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
>> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
>> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
>> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
>> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
>> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports 'halting'
>> and therefore D does not halt.
>> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H that
>> returns different results at each stimulation level, then at some
>> levels it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both halting
>> and non-halting responses. :)
>> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy, because
>> this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the simulation
>> levels and others are happy, because the halting theorem is not violated.
>
So again an example is given of a simulation that reaches lines 04 and
line 06 and again not a single word about it.
And we will see that olcott will continue to repeat that no example was
presented.
Olcott want us to pay full attention to every single word he writes, but
he does not read more than the first ten words of what is written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1h8r7$flc1$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333818 |
On 5/8/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> 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
>
> *My fully operational code proves how it works*
And get the wrong answer.
>
> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>
> HH(DD,DD) determines that its input will never halt
> by simulating itself simulating it and seeing that
> this creates the exact same prior state of DD.
But does so incorrectly.
ALso, that isn't the defihition of "Halting" so you are proved to have
spent two decades on your own strawman.
>
>> functions with hidden inputs, we can construct a H that keeps track
>> of > the simulation level. So, imagine a H that has as hidden input
>> not only
>> its own address, but also the address of an integer value, the
>> simulation level, initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments
>> the level and when it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can
>> construct a H that, when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates
>> infinitely, but when it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon
>> as it would start to simulate itself.
>> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
>> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
>> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
>> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
>> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
>> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports 'halting'
>> and therefore D does not halt.
>> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H that
>> returns different results at each stimulation level, then at some
>> levels it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both halting
>> and non-halting responses. :)
>> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy, because
>> this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the simulation
>> levels and others are happy, because the halting theorem is not violated.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1gjg1$4imh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333811 |
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.
> we can construct a H that keeps track of
> the simulation level. So, imagine a H that has as hidden input not only
> its own address, but also the address of an integer value, the
> simulation level, initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments
> the level and when it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can
> construct a H that, when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates
> infinitely, but when it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon as
> it would start to simulate itself.
> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports 'halting'
> and therefore D does not halt.
> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H that
> returns different results at each stimulation level, then at some levels
> it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both halting and
> non-halting responses. :)
> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy, because
> this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the simulation levels
> and others are happy, because the halting theorem is not violated.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1h8ra$flc1$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333826 |
On 5/8/24 3:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
Where did you define that?
Your definition of H was just that it was C code.
>
> Since it is understood that we have only been talking about
> computable functions there was no need to get more specific
> than this.
But if H is a computable function, then if H returns 0 to main, the ONLY
possible correct simulaiton of it in H's simulation needs to return 0,
and NOT be "proven" to never halt.
So, you are just proving that you H fails to be a correct simulator, and
thus its answer is inconsistant with facts.
>
> 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.
But not and get the right answer to the proper input.
>
>> we can construct a H that keeps track of the simulation level. So,
>> imagine a H that has as hidden input not only its own address, but
>> also the address of an integer value, the simulation level,
>> initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments the level and when
>> it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can construct a H that,
>> when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates infinitely, but when
>> it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon as it would start to
>> simulate itself.
>> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
>> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
>> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
>> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
>> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
>> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports 'halting'
>> and therefore D does not halt.
>> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H that
>> returns different results at each stimulation level, then at some
>> levels it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both halting
>> and non-halting responses. :)
>> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy, because
>> this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the simulation
>> levels and others are happy, because the halting theorem is not violated.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1hra7$gpdc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333826 |
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.
Does he now introduce a very vague claim that the external simulator
would recognizes in some other way that a recursive simulation would
start? But then the simulator would be able to find out its own address
by looking at the address of the call. If that is possible, the same
method can be used to find out the address of the simulation level
integer. Once the address of this integer has been found, it is still
possible to keep track of the simulation level. So, the construction
(below) of a simulator that simulates infinitely at the outer level, and
only one cycle at inner levels is still possible. Which refutes olcott's
claim that no simulator can reach line 04 and 06.
>
>> we can construct a H that keeps track of the simulation level. So,
>> imagine a H that has as hidden input not only its own address, but
>> also the address of an integer value, the simulation level,
>> initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments the level and when
>> it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can construct a H that,
>> when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates infinitely, but when
>> it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon as it would start to
>> simulate itself.
>> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
>> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
>> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
>> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
>> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
>> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports 'halting'
>> and therefore D does not halt.
>> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H that
>> returns different results at each stimulation level, then at some
>> levels it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both halting
>> and non-halting responses. :)
>> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy, because
>> this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the simulation
>> levels and others are happy, because the halting theorem is not violated.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1ic0m$h4n4$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333856 |
On 5/9/24 2:43 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.
>
> Does he now introduce a very vague claim that the external simulator
> would recognizes in some other way that a recursive simulation would
> start? But then the simulator would be able to find out its own address
> by looking at the address of the call. If that is possible, the same
> method can be used to find out the address of the simulation level
> integer. Once the address of this integer has been found, it is still
> possible to keep track of the simulation level. So, the construction
> (below) of a simulator that simulates infinitely at the outer level, and
> only one cycle at inner levels is still possible. Which refutes olcott's
> claim that no simulator can reach line 04 and 06.
>
Yep, that describes is "logic" fairly well. He doesn't actually know the
meaning of many of the terms he uses, but just rotely parrots them from
others works that he doesn't understand. What he knows comes from a
superficial reading of some of the material, and then guessing what
things mean based on what he thinks the people must mean.
>
>>
>>> we can construct a H that keeps track of the simulation level. So,
>>> imagine a H that has as hidden input not only its own address, but
>>> also the address of an integer value, the simulation level,
>>> initialised at 0. Each time H starts, it increments the level and
>>> when it returns, it decrements the level. Then we can construct a H
>>> that, when it sees that it is at level 1, it simulates infinitely,
>>> but when it sees that it is at level 2, it aborts as soon as it would
>>> start to simulate itself.
>>> So, the inner simulated H aborts after one cycle and returns
>>> non-halting, the simulated D then goes to line 04 and line 06 and
>>> returns, and then the outer simulating H reports 'halting'.
>>> So, we have a single H that reports different things about the same D.
>>> Of course, also this outer simulating H is wrong, because when D is
>>> called directly, it sees that the outer simulating H reports
>>> 'halting' and therefore D does not halt.
>>> So, this might be the solution to olcott's problem. Construct a H
>>> that returns different results at each stimulation level, then at
>>> some levels it is correct. It cannot be wrong when it gives both
>>> halting and non-halting responses. :)
>>> It has no further use, but everyone is happy. olcott is happy,
>>> because this H gives a correct answer for its D in one of the
>>> simulation levels and others are happy, because the halting theorem
>>> is not violated.
>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue |
| Message-ID | <v1j7bu$qv7d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333856 |
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*
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.
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.
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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue |
| Message-ID | <v1k0u1$iuna$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333862 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue |
| Message-ID | <v1k3v1$14mbi$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333867 |
On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
>
*It other words I will insist that people prove my mistake*
*and not simply use the change-of-subject strawman deception*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue |
| Message-ID | <v1labo$kf52$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333872 |
On 5/9/24 11:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> *It other words I will insist that people prove my mistake*
> *and not simply use the change-of-subject strawman deception*
>
>
Not our problem. YOU have the burden of proof.
I think your goal is still to get a paper published in a respectable
journal, and you always have the power to just write and submit that paper.
The problem is you KNOW your argument isn't good enough to get by the
peer review, so YOU have the need to fix your argument, so you come here
to get free advice. You don't get to set conditions of free advice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1eosv$cp5s$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333785 |
On 5/7/24 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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).
>
> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
> past its own line 03.
I did, so YOU LIE.
You even replied to that post, you just ignored that proof, even though
you went past the point where I anounced that the proof was in the post.
Thus, you know you are wrong, but still repeat the claim, showing that
you are just a pathological liar.
>
> Like the pillow guys claims of evidence of election fraud people can
> claim that there is evidence yet cannot possibly provide this evidence.
> The pillow guy is losing ALL of his assets over his defamation.
>
>> 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.
>>
>>>
>>> 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 01
>>> Line 02
>>> 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 key thing to note is that no D simulated by any H ever reaches
>>> its own line 06 and halts. This means that the input to H(D,D) is
>>> ALWAYS non-halting.
>>>
>>
>> It seems that olcott has found a subset of the infinite set of
>> possible H functions for which he can prove that none of them is able
>> to perform a good simulation, so they have to abort and guess an
>> answer, which happens to be wrong.
>> Not a surprising result, since for any H a D can be constructed for
>> which it will be unable to decide correctly.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v1ft42$3vdau$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333785 |
On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> 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).
>>
>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>> past its own line 03.
>
> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
> is another question.
>
*My fully operational code proves otherwise*
I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <-5Gdnf-nQvstC6b7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #333817 |
On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>> past its own line 03.
>>
>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>> is another question.
>>
>
> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>
> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>
> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows HH to detect whether it is the
outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to
the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally separate "I am called in
nested mode" code path!
You agreed this a few weeks ago. Or have you fixed this code now? I bet you haven't.
Until you fix the code you should not be referring to it as "fully operational" code, because it is
simply WRONG and so does not demonstrate anything at all.
Regards,
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v1gid8$4ilc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333821 |
On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>>> is another question.
>>>
>>
>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>
>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>
>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>
> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows HH
> to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. As a
> result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the outer HH - I
> mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally separate "I am
> called in nested mode" code path!
>
The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
be a computable function.
*Maybe you can settle this*
The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
reach past its own line 03 and halt.
*He used this example to prove that*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
> return 0;
> }
*Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
*Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
*Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
*Any "simulator" that never simulates is not a simulator at all*
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
it own line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
Richard keeps saying that he posted proof otherwise and
absolutely will not provide this "proof".
> You agreed this a few weeks ago. Or have you fixed this code now? I
> bet you haven't.
>
That you proved it can be fixed on the basis that a simulator can
examine every detail of its simulated input's internal state seems
to prove that it can be fixed.
This is good enough for my current state of physical health.
I can't drop everything and take six months to make this fix
before proving my point.
We are only talking about a simple hypothetical that four
experts in C (two of them with master's in CS) already agreed to.
Richard just doesn't seem able to tell the truth about this.
> Until you fix the code you should not be referring to it as "fully
> operational" code, because it is simply WRONG and so does not
> demonstrate anything at all.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v1h9eu$9faf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333823 |
On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>
>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its line
>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>>>> is another question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>
>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>
>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>
>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows HH
>> to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH. As a
>> result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the outer HH -
>> I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally separate "I
>> am called in nested mode" code path!
>>
>
> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
> be a computable function.
>
> *Maybe you can settle this*
>
> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
Here's the proof:
1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
direct execution.
2. The direct execution reaches past line 03 and halts.
3. Therefore, the simulation reaches past line 03 and halts.
So far, you have only shown things that are not simulations, but you
called them "simulations" anyway because you are a liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v1iqli$nsva$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333843 |
On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its
>>>>> line
>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that line
>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>
>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>
>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>
>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows
>>> HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH.
>>> As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the
>>> outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a totally
>>> separate "I am called in nested mode" code path!
>>>
>>
>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>> be a computable function.
>>
>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>
>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>
> Here's the proof:
>
> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
> direct execution.
*When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H possibly
reach line 06 of H proves this.
Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
of D simulated by H:
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the detailed*
*steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably liars*
00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int function
01 int D(ptr x)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v1k0ts$iuna$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333860 |
On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches its
>>>>>> line
>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that
>>>>>> line
>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>
>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>
>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows
>>>> HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH.
>>>> As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the
>>>> outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a
>>>> totally separate "I am called in nested mode" code path!
>>>>
>>>
>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>>> be a computable function.
>>>
>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>
>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>
>> Here's the proof:
>>
>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
>> direct execution.
>
> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H possibly
> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>
> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
> of D simulated by H:
Nope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this
multiple times.
Thus, you are proven to be just a stupid liar.
>
> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
> *That people say they know I am wrong yet will not show the detailed*
> *steps of how I am wrong indicates that they are probably liars*
Nope, IT WAS SHOWN, and you keep repeating your denial that it was.
>
> 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.
>
Nope, just your lies.
And one you admit you are not certain enought about to accept my put up
or shut up challenge, thus, you admit you are making baseless lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Richard tried to get away with this falsehood |
| Message-ID | <v1k381$14mbi$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333865 |
On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D) reaches
>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches
>>>>>>> its line
>>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches that
>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>>
>>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is allows
>>>>> HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested (simulated) HH.
>>>>> As a result, the nested HH behaves completely differently to the
>>>>> outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it goes through a
>>>>> totally separate "I am called in nested mode" code path!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>>>> be a computable function.
>>>>
>>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>>
>>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>>
>>> Here's the proof:
>>>
>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
>>> direct execution.
>>
>> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
>> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H possibly
>> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>
>
>
>>
>> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
>> of D simulated by H:
>
> Nope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this
> multiple times.
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
*When you interpret*
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic |
| Message-ID | <v1labh$kf53$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #333870 |
On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D)
>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches
>>>>>>>> its line
>>>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches
>>>>>>>> that line
>>>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is
>>>>>> allows HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested
>>>>>> (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely
>>>>>> differently to the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it
>>>>>> goes through a totally separate "I am called in nested mode" code
>>>>>> path!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>>>>> be a computable function.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>>>
>>>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>>>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>>>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the proof:
>>>>
>>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
>>>> direct execution.
>>>
>>> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
>>> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H possibly
>>> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
>>> of D simulated by H:
>>
>> Nope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this
>> multiple times.
>
> 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.
>
My H simulated 0 steps of D, of which was ALL of the steps it simulated
correctly.
It used logic just as good as your H in determining that it was correct.
You don't seem to understand that logic.
The arguement still holds if H simulates exactly one step (to allow the
claim additional claim of some steps correctly simulated as well as the
claim tha ALL steps were correctly simulated).
Note, you haven't defined what "Simulated" means, and thus it doesn't
need to mean exact reproduction of the steps used in the procedure, so
your claim that my program was D NEVER simulated isn't actually proven.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood |
| Message-ID | <v1lfnq$1e7af$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #333876 |
On 5/10/2024 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/9/24 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/9/2024 9:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/9/24 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/2024 8:38 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 8/05/24 21:05, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 10:13 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/05/2024 14:01, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2024 3:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-07 19:05:54 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No-one can possibly show one element of this set where D(D)
>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If H is a decider of any kind then the D build from it reaches
>>>>>>>>> its line
>>>>>>>>> 4 as numberd above. Whether the simulation of D by H reaches
>>>>>>>>> that line
>>>>>>>>> is another question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *My fully operational code proves otherwise*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I seems like you guys don't have a clue about how infinite
>>>>>>>> recursion works. You can run the code and see that I am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have one concrete instance as fully operational code.
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> line 555 u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I) its input in on
>>>>>>>> line 932 int DD(int (*x)())
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HH is completely broken - it uses a global variable which is
>>>>>>> allows HH to detect whether it is the outer HH or a nested
>>>>>>> (simulated) HH. As a result, the nested HH behaves completely
>>>>>>> differently to the outer HH - I mean /completely/ differently: it
>>>>>>> goes through a totally separate "I am called in nested mode" code
>>>>>>> path!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The encoding of HH is not the pure function that it needs to be to
>>>>>> be a computable function.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Maybe you can settle this*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The disagreement is entirely over an enormously much simpler thing.
>>>>>> The disagreement is that Richard says that a D simulated by H could
>>>>>> reach past its own line 03 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the proof:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. A simulation always produces an identical execution trace to the
>>>>> direct execution.
>>>>
>>>> *When pathological self-reference is involved this is counter-factual*
>>>> That no one can possibly show the steps of how D simulated by H
>>>> possibly
>>>> reach line 06 of H proves this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Richard tried to get away with D never simulated by H as an example
>>>> of D simulated by H:
>>>
>>> Nope, you are looking at the WRONG message, and I have told you this
>>> multiple times.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> My H simulated 0 steps of D, of which was ALL of the steps it simulated
> correctly.
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SPEC*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web