Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #50224

Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/11/22 12:47 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2022 10:50 AM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> (a) Verify that the execution trace of P by H is correct by comparing
>>> this execution trace to the ax86 source-code of P.
>>
>> P called with what argument?  I assume P.
>>
>>> (b) Verify that this execution trace shows that P is stuck in
>>> infinitely nested simulation (a non-halting behavior).
>>
>> Something is wrong in your code if P(P), or a simulation of P(P), does
>> not halt, since you told us that it does.  Post the code and someone
>> will help you find the bug.
>>
>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>> #define u32 uint32_t
>>>
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>>    if (H(x, x))
>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>> }
>>
>> Unless you are retracting any of the facts you have previously stated,
>> we know (because you've told us) that H(P,P) returns 0 and we know
>> (because you've told us) that P(P) halts.  The trace of the execution
>> will either confirm this, or the trace is faulty.  Nothing new can come
>> from looking at traces of mystery code.
>>
> 
> (a) The trace is verifiably correct if one has the technical skill.

No, it is verifiably INCORRECT for one with even a tiny bit of skill.

> (b) The trace is proved non-halting if one has the technical skill.
> You simply don't seem to have the technical skill.
> 

Nope, the trace proves you are LYING about actually simulating the input.

> I PUT BACK IN THE MANDATORY DETAILS THAT PROVE MY POINT THAT YOU ERASED.
> 
> #include <stdint.h>
> #define u32 uint32_t
> 
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>    if (H(x, x))
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
> 
> _P()
> [00001352](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001353](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001355](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001358](01)  50              push eax
> [00001359](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000135c](01)  51              push ecx
> [0000135d](05)  e840feffff      call 000011a2 // call H
> [00001362](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001365](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
> [00001367](02)  7402            jz 0000136b
> [00001369](02)  ebfe            jmp 00001369
> [0000136b](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [0000136c](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000136c]
> 
> _main()
> [00001372](01)  55              push ebp
> [00001373](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
> [00001375](05)  6852130000      push 00001352 // push P
> [0000137a](05)  6852130000      push 00001352 // push P
> [0000137f](05)  e81efeffff      call 000011a2 // call H
> [00001384](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001387](01)  50              push eax
> [00001388](05)  6823040000      push 00000423 // "Input_Halts = "
> [0000138d](05)  e8e0f0ffff      call 00000472 // call Output
> [00001392](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
> [00001395](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
> [00001397](01)  5d              pop ebp
> [00001398](01)  c3              ret
> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001398]
> 
>      machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>      address   address   data      code       language
>      ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> ...[00001372][0010229e][00000000] 55         push ebp
> ...[00001373][0010229e][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001375][0010229a][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
> ...[0000137a][00102296][00001352] 6852130000 push 00001352 // push P
> ...[0000137f][00102292][00001384] e81efeffff call 000011a2 // call H
> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:212352
> ...[00001352][0021233e][00212342] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0021233e][00212342] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0021233e][00212342] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0021233a][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0021233a][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][00212336][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][00212332][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H

Trace breaks here. A CORRECT Trace would now trace the operation of the 
copy of H that P is using.

Also, the following never happens as code in the call to H unless H just 
calls its input at which point it can't 'abort' this 'simuation'

> ...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55         push ebp      // enter P
> ...[00001353][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
> ...[00001355][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00001358][0025cd62][00001352] 50         push eax      // push P
> ...[00001359][0025cd62][00001352] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[0000135c][0025cd5e][00001352] 51         push ecx      // push P
> ...[0000135d][0025cd5a][00001362] e840feffff call 000011a2 // call H
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 

Thus proving that H didn't just call its input (or the H being called by 
P isn't the same as the H deciding on H(P,P) and thus you are lying 
about build P correctly.


> H sees that P is calling the same function from the same machine address 
> with identical parameters, twice in sequence. This is the infinite 
> recursion (infinitely nested simulation) non-halting behavior pattern.

FALSE. YOU are forgetting that the H being called will (if it is the 
same code as the H deciding) will also abort its simulation, thus 
breaking the "infinite recursion", thus the proof is UNSOUND.

> 
> ...[00001384][0010229e][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
> ...[00001387][0010229a][00000000] 50         push eax
> ...[00001388][00102296][00000423] 6823040000 push 00000423 // 
> "Input_Halts = "
> ---[0000138d][00102296][00000423] e8e0f0ffff call 00000472 // call Output
> Input_Halts = 0
> ...[00001392][0010229e][00000000] 83c408     add esp,+08
> ...[00001395][0010229e][00000000] 33c0       xor eax,eax
> ...[00001397][001022a2][00100000] 5d         pop ebp
> ...[00001398][001022a6][00000004] c3         ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(15892) lines = 237 pages
> 
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5 
> 
> 
> 

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 07:26 -0500
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 07:55 -0700
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 16:50 +0100
    Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 23:47 -0500
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 07:16 -0400
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 14:21 +0100
        Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:24 -0500
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:51 +0100
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 19:42 -0400
    Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:07 -0500
      Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:54 +0100
        Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 16:35 -0500
          Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 01:25 +0100
            Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:38 -0500
              Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 20:59 -0400
              Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:24 +0100
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:46 -0500
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 23:10 -0400
                Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ]( will keep repeating until understood ) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:32 +0100
  Re: Proof that H(P,P)==0 is correct [ refuting the halting problem proofs ] wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-13 12:38 -0700

csiph-web