XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic
On 5/19/2022 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/19/2022 2:19 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 5/19/2022 6:56 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 5/18/2022 7:57 PM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
On 5/18/2022 10:31 AM, Ben wrote:
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
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
...[00001352][0025cd66][0025cd6a] 55 push ebp //
enter P
This can't be the trace of the function you have been talking
about.
The H you claim to have simulates something (no one cares what, >>>>>>>> but it's
something) so the code at the start of H should be setting up and >>>>>>>> entering a simulator.
You've admitted you edit some traces which is really not on. I >>>>>>>> think
you should stop posting them until you can be honest about them. >>>>>>>> Mind you, my personally guess is that the trace is fundamentally >>>>>>>> honest
about you've been pulling our legs about what H really does.
It's just
the top-level x86 emulator that does that does any "simulating" >>>>>>>> and H
really does call P which calls H which calls P...
ON THE BASIS OF THE X86 MACHINE CODE PROVIDED FOR P AND THE
EXECUTION TRACE OF P PROVIDED BY H IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT
THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P IS THE EXECUTION TRACE OF P THAT
WOULD OCCUR IF H PERFORMED A PURE SIMULATION OF THE FIRST
13 INSTRUCTIONS OF P.
Ah, "if". So you admit that you are tracing an H this is not the one >>>>>> you have been describing, or are you just trying to justify
editing the
trace? You should be clear on this point.
THE TRACE OF H IS IRRELEVANT, WHAT ARE YOU STUPID?
Another question you won't answer. What are you hiding?
A confusing mess of ridiculously complex and totally irrelevant
information that you have consistently proven incapable of
comprehending.
You'll have to make it public one day, unless chatting on here is your
only objective.
ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED
LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS
CORRECT.
#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 ...[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
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.
...[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_User_Instructions(1)
Number of Instructions Executed(15892) = 237 pages
No one will take deceptively edited traces as evidence
of anything but you being shifty, and since you've already abandoned any
pretence at talking about the halting problem, all you have is this
faked-up trace of the simulation.
ANYONE WITH SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCE THAT IS NOT A GOD DAMNED
LIAR KNOWS THAT I ALREADY TOTALLY PROVED MY POINT THAT H(P,P)==0 IS
CORRECT.
ONE CAN VERIFY THAT THE EXECUTION TRACE IS CORRECT ON THE BASIS THAT
THE EXECUTION TRACE OF THE INPUT TO H(P,P) CORRESPONDS TO
THE BEHAVIOR SPECIFIED BY THE X86 SOURCE-CODE OF P
WHERE H(P,P) CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT
THAT CALLS H(P,P) THAT CORRECTLY EMULATES ITS INPUT
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU DON'T SEE THIS.
H(P,P) == false is wrong about the halting of P(P) and the trace does
not back-up what you say your H is doing. There's nothing left here.
But there's always the TM emulator... How's that coming along?
There are about two lines of code that are out-of-place. I have been ill
and had other issues that I had to deal with.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)