On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 22:09:53 +0100
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 16:06:19 -0500
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/29/2022 3:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 15:41:07 -0500
> > > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 6/29/2022 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2022 14:12:34 -0500
> > >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 6/29/2022 1:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If we put to one side the fact that a simulation-based halting
> > >>>>> decider is invalid* it is a FACT that such a decider, to be
> > >>>>> considered valid, should decide on the behaviour of P(P)
> > >>>>> calling H(P,P).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It does do that yet the details of this seem to be beyond your
> > >>>> technical knowledge of the semantics of the x986 language.
> > >>>
> > >>> I fully understand 80x86 assembly; I was programming in it in
> > >>> the 1990s.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your simulation halting decider is no such thing as it gets the
> > >>> answer to the following wrong:
> > >>>
> > >>> void Px(u32 x)
> > >>> {
> > >>> H(x, x);
> > >>> return;
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> int main()
> > >>> {
> > >>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> > >>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>> ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
> > >>> ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
> > >>> ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
> > >>> Input_Halts = 0
> > >>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>> ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>> ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > >>> ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
> > >>> Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> > >>>
> > >>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not halt
> > >>> but it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is a valid
> > >>> halt decider that always returns a decision to its caller (Px).
> > >>> Olcott's H does not return a decision to its caller (Px) and is
> > >>> thus invalid.
> > >>>
> > >>> /Flibble
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> In other words you are insufficiently technically competent on
> > >> the semantics of the x86 language to correctly evalate this:
> > >>
> > >> void Px(u32 x)
> > >> {
> > >> H(x, x);
> > >> return;
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> int main()
> > >> {
> > >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> _Px()
> > >> [00001152](01) 55 push ebp
> > >> [00001153](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >> [00001155](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >> [00001158](01) 50 push eax
> > >> [00001159](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >> [0000115c](01) 51 push ecx
> > >> [0000115d](05) e810feffff call 00000f72
> > >> [00001162](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >> [00001165](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >> [00001166](01) c3 ret
> > >> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001166]
> > >>
> > >> _main()
> > >> [000011b2](01) 55 push ebp
> > >> [000011b3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >> [000011b5](05) 6852110000 push 00001152
> > >> [000011ba](05) 6852110000 push 00001152
> > >> [000011bf](05) e8aefdffff call 00000f72
> > >> [000011c4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >> [000011c7](01) 50 push eax
> > >> [000011c8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> > >> [000011cd](05) e820f3ffff call 000004f2
> > >> [000011d2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >> [000011d5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >> [000011d7](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >> [000011d8](01) c3 ret
> > >> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011d8]
> > >>
> > >> machine stack stack machine assembly
> > >> address address data code language
> > >> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> > >> [000011b2][00101f43][00000000] 55 push ebp
> > >> [000011b3][00101f43][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >> [000011b5][00101f3f][00001152] 6852110000 push 00001152
> > >> [000011ba][00101f3b][00001152] 6852110000 push 00001152
> > >> [000011bf][00101f37][000011c4] e8aefdffff call 00000f72
> > >>
> > >> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:111fef
> > >> Address_of_H:f72
> > >> [00001152][00111fdb][00111fdf] 55 push ebp
> > >> [00001153][00111fdb][00111fdf] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >> [00001155][00111fdb][00111fdf] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >> [00001158][00111fd7][00001152] 50 push eax
> > >> [00001159][00111fd7][00001152] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >> [0000115c][00111fd3][00001152] 51 push ecx
> > >> [0000115d][00111fcf][00001162] e810feffff call 00000f72
> > >> H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> > >>
> > >> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it can easily
> > >> examine its stored execution_trace of P (see above) to determine:
> > >> (a) P is calling H with the same arguments that H was called
> > >> with. (b) No instructions in P could possibly escape this
> > >> otherwise infinitely recursive emulation.
> > >> (c) H aborts its emulation of P before its call to H is emulated.
> > >>
> > >> [000011c4][00101f43][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >> [000011c7][00101f3f][00000000] 50 push eax
> > >> [000011c8][00101f3b][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> > >> [000011cd][00101f3b][000004a3] e820f3ffff call 000004f2
> > >> Input_Halts = 0
> > >> [000011d2][00101f43][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >> [000011d5][00101f43][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >> [000011d7][00101f47][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> > >> [000011d8][00101f4b][00000000] c3 ret
> > >> Number of Instructions Executed(881) == 13 Pages
> > >
> > > I fully understand 80x86 assembly: there is no infinite recursion
> > > when using a valid halting decider, your H isn't a valid halting
> > > decider.
> > >
> > > /Flibble
> > >
> >
> > You continue to use the strawman deception:
> >
> > straw man
> > An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because
> > it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> > https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
> >
> > I am not saying that the input to H(P,P) is infinitely recursive
> > emulation. It is clear that this recursion stops as soon as it is
> > aborted. If stopped running (because simulation was aborted) was
> > the same thing as halting then I would be wrong. It is NOT the same
> > thing.
>
> There is no aborting of a simulation when using a valid halting
> decider, your H isn't a valid halting decider.

Or more accurately:

There is no aborting of a simulation without also returning a decision
to the caller of the decider (Px in this case). If you insist on
aborting the simulation then you must do it in such a way that you can
also return a value to the caller; if you can achieve that then we can
talk again, until then you've got nothing of value, merely an S, an
Olcott Simulation Detector, rather than a valid halting decider.

/Flibble