On 6/13/22 8:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2022 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/13/22 7:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2022 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:12:49 -0500
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My research seems to be the first time that anyone fully analyzed
>>>>> applying a simulating halt decider (SHD) to the halting problem's
>>>>> pathological inputs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prior to this no one was aware that when a halt decider correctly
>>>>> simulates its input that the behavior of this simulated input could
>>>>> possibly diverge from the behavior of the direct execution of this
>>>>> same input. This only occurs when a pathological relationship exists
>>>>> between a halt decider and its input.
>>>>>
>>>>> When H(P,P) performs a correct x86 emulation of its input the
>>>>> behavior of this emulated input is entirely different than the
>>>>> behavior of the directly executed P(P). Until this is empirically
>>>>> validated by provably correct execution traces this may seem to be
>>>>> impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact all of my reviewers rejected the provably correct execution
>>>>> traces in favor of their intuition. When we carefully examine the
>>>>> actual facts (provided by the provably correct execution traces) we
>>>>> find that this intuition is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since no one has ever fully examined applying a simulating halt
>>>>> decider (SHD) to the Halting Problem's pathological inputs ever
>>>>> before no one ever noticed that the behavior of a correctly simulated
>>>>> input would diverge from the behavior of the directly executed input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because no one was previously aware of this divergence textbook
>>>>> authors simply refer to the behavior of the directly executed input
>>>>> as the criterion measure for a halt decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we know that a halt decider must compute the mapping from its
>>>>> inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis of the actual
>>>>> behavior that is actually specified by these inputs then it becomes
>>>>> clear that these textbook authors merely based their criterion
>>>>> measure on a false assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void P(u32 x)
>>>>> {
>>>>>     if (H(x, x))
>>>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>     return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     P(P);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _P()
>>>>> [000012e7](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [000012e8](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012ea](03)  8b4508          mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012ed](01)  50              push eax
>>>>> [000012ee](03)  8b4d08          mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012f1](01)  51              push ecx
>>>>> [000012f2](05)  e880feffff      call 00001177 // call H
>>>>> [000012f7](03)  83c408          add esp,+08
>>>>> [000012fa](02)  85c0            test eax,eax
>>>>> [000012fc](02)  7402            jz 00001300
>>>>> [000012fe](02)  ebfe            jmp 000012fe
>>>>> [00001300](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [00001301](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00001301]
>>>>> _main()
>>>>> [00001307](01)  55              push ebp
>>>>> [00001308](02)  8bec            mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [0000130a](05)  68e7120000      push 000012e7 // push P
>>>>> [0000130f](05)  e8d3ffffff      call 000012e7 // call P
>>>>> [00001314](03)  83c404          add esp,+04
>>>>> [00001317](02)  33c0            xor eax,eax
>>>>> [00001319](01)  5d              pop ebp
>>>>> [0000131a](01)  c3              ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0020) [0000131a]
>>>>>
>>>>>    machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>>>>>    address   address   data      code       language
>>>>>    ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
>>>>> [00001307][00102190][00000000] 55         push ebp
>>>>> [00001308][00102190][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [0000130a][0010218c][000012e7] 68e7120000 push 000012e7 // push P
>>>>> [0000130f][00102188][00001314] e8d3ffffff call 000012e7 // call P
>>>>> [000012e7][00102184][00102190] 55         push ebp      // enter
>>>>> executed P [000012e8][00102184][00102190] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012ea][00102184][00102190] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012ed][00102180][000012e7] 50         push eax      // push P
>>>>> [000012ee][00102180][000012e7] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012f1][0010217c][000012e7] 51         push ecx      // push P
>>>>> [000012f2][00102178][000012f7] e880feffff call 00001177 // call H
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:212244
>>>>> [000012e7][00212230][00212234] 55          push ebp      // enter
>>>>> emulated P [000012e8][00212230][00212234] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012ea][00212230][00212234] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012ed][0021222c][000012e7] 50          push eax      // push P
>>>>> [000012ee][0021222c][000012e7] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012f1][00212228][000012e7] 51          push ecx      // push P
>>>>> [000012f2][00212224][000012f7] e880feffff  call 00001177 // call H
>>>>> [000012e7][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 55          push ebp      // enter
>>>>> emulated P [000012e8][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 8bec        mov ebp,esp
>>>>> [000012ea][0025cc58][0025cc5c] 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012ed][0025cc54][000012e7] 50          push eax      // push P
>>>>> [000012ee][0025cc54][000012e7] 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
>>>>> [000012f1][0025cc50][000012e7] 51          push ecx      // push P
>>>>> [000012f2][0025cc4c][000012f7] e880feffff  call 00001177 // call H
>>>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> It is completely obvious that when H(P,P) correctly emulates its
>>>>> input that it must emulate the first seven instructions of P.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the seventh instruction of P repeats this process we know
>>>>> with complete certainty that the correct and complete emulation of P
>>>>> by H would never reach the final “ret” instruction of P, thus never
>>>>> halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> [000012f7][00102184][00102190] 83c408      add esp,+08
>>>>> [000012fa][00102184][00102190] 85c0        test eax,eax
>>>>> [000012fc][00102184][00102190] 7402        jz 00001300
>>>>> [00001300][00102188][00001314] 5d          pop ebp
>>>>> [00001301][0010218c][000012e7] c3          ret           // executed
>>>>> P halts [00001314][00102190][00000000] 83c404      add esp,+04
>>>>> [00001317][00102190][00000000] 33c0        xor eax,eax
>>>>> [00001319][00102194][00100000] 5d          pop ebp
>>>>> [0000131a][00102198][00000000] c3          ret           // main()
>>>>> halts Number of Instructions Executed(15900) 237 pages
>>>>>
>>>>> When P(P) is executed its behavior depends on the return value of H.
>>>>> When H(P,P) is executed the correctly emulated P cannot possibly
>>>>> reach the point where its behavior depends on H. This makes the
>>>>> behavior of P(P) diverge from the behavior of the input to H(P,P).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V5)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359984584_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V5
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have yet to show that your H can detect all forms of infinite
>>>> cycle;
>>>
>>> No I do not and after very many repeated corrections you seem to
>>> simply lack the intellectual capacity to understand otherwise.
>>>
>>> I can completely ignore all loops infinite or not all recursion
>>> infinite or not and still prove that H(P,P) does correctly decide the
>>> halt status of its input. The halt status of the input to H(P,P) is
>>> the entire software engineering scope of my research.
>>>
>>> If you are looking for a white dog in your living room you need not
>>> look for anything else anywhere else.
>>
>> And, since P(P) Halts when for the H that it is built on H(P,P)
>> returns 0,
>
> That you continue to believe that an aborted simulated input continues
> to execute after it has been aborted is psychotic.
>
>

That you continue to believe that an aborted simulation tells you
anything about the behavior of the machine that was being simulated
shows your ignorance.

Remember the definition of Halting? That the MACHINE reaches a final
state. It isn't that the simulation does, it is the machine.

You just seem incapable of understanding even such simple abstract
concepts, you brain must be so defective.