Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 08:56:27 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 90 Message-ID: References:

<87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2024 15:56:27 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e1a2626012d6c432c11247ed1bf0353"; logging-data="3527653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IrGmQXPWdU0YLsSpSmjgI" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1HkujkhOnXOSSLoKY3hJJfZhAxg= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4680 On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> *two dozen people were simply wrong* >>> >>> Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve >>> a subject line? I would think that people who are right are >>> more interesting. >>> >> >> This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself. >> Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in >> another reply. > > The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence > does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers > to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either, > so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third > sentence says that you covevered nothing. > >> That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that >> the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS >> WRONG. > > That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show > anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they > really were wrong. > The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself. Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp Sci dogma to overrule verified facts. When I pinned Richard down on this he simply said that he does not care that DD correctly simulated by HH has different behavior than DD(DD). It turns out that DD correctly simulated by HH the behavior that the input to HH(DD,DD) specifies. Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs. Deciders compute the mapping FROM THEIR INPUTS... typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C 00 int HH(ptr p, ptr i); 01 int DD(ptr p) 02 { 03 int Halt_Status = HH(p, p); 04 if (Halt_Status) 05 HERE: goto HERE; 06 return Halt_Status; 07 } 08 09 int main() 10 { 11 HH(DD,DD); 12 return 0; 13 } DD correctly emulated by HH with an x86 emulator cannot possibly reach past its own machine instruction [00001c2e] in any finite (or infinite) number of steps of correct emulation. _DD() [00001c22] 55 push ebp [00001c23] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001c25] 51 push ecx [00001c26] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001c29] 50 push eax ; push DD 1c22 [00001c2a] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001c2d] 51 push ecx ; push DD 1c22 [00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342 ; call HH [00001c33] 83c408 add esp,+08 [00001c36] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00001c39] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [00001c3d] 7402 jz 00001c41 [00001c3f] ebfe jmp 00001c3f [00001c41] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00001c44] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00001c46] 5d pop ebp [00001c47] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer