Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 19:37:23 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <2f92f1edf20d93420e4111eaa252f3650de0113f@i2pn2.org> References: <349430b1223591beb2ebea42b5f3a9e64ea8d795@i2pn2.org> <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org> <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org> <4ccc2cbecfd0e6befd031ed394f1262edd021822@i2pn2.org> <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org> <6d0683c816f5f63b3a17c8a52e9b691eecc143a8@i2pn2.org> <2ebbdef8e9070397a2ec3db6dbc37c16f1fe8923@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:37:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2104940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 9760 Lines: 195 On 12/9/24 8:46 AM, olcott wrote: > On 12/9/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-12-08 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 12/8/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-05 04:20:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month. >>>>> There may be an extended pause in my comments. >>>>> I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital. >>>>> >>>>> On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> HHH can't simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is WRONG !!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITSELF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>> HHH can't simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IT CAN DO THIS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But only if your think that wrong answer can be right. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not mention anything about answers my entire >>>>>>>>>>>>> scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>> thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely >>>>>>>>>>>>> seems dishonest to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer", >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction >>>>>>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it >>>>>>>>>> isn't given it, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this? >>>>>>>>> I could die on the operating table in two weeks! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What's the lie? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable >>>>>>>> reference that show it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All you have is your own lies to call it a lie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you will >>>>>>>> have left behind is all your lies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that >>>>>>> HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure >>>>>> function >>>>> >>>>> It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD. >>>>> >>>>> Once we get through this point then we know that DDD >>>>> does not halt: >>>>> >>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of >>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction >>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts. >>>>> *This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT* >>>>> >>>>> We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this >>>>> answer as a pure function until after we agree with the >>>>> prior point. >>>>> >>>>> *In all of the history of the halting problem there* >>>>> *have never been a correct return value for this* >>>>> >>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>> >>>>> int DD() >>>>> { >>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> int main() >>>>> { >>>>>    HHH(DD); >>>>> } >>>> >>>> This is not a useful main. It is sufficient to determine whether HHH >>>> returns but not to determine whther it returns the correct value. >>>> >>>>> When we understand that the first point is correct >>>>> then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct. >>>>> *This has much has never ever been done before* >>>> >>>> This is one of the well known methods to prove that the value HHH >>>> returns >>>> is incorrect. If HHH returns 0 then DD returns 0 but the meaning of >>>> 0 in >>>> this context is that DD does not halt. THerefore the value returned by >>>> HHH is incorrect. >> >>> Every expert in the C programming language has agreed that DD >>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly return. >> >> No, they not. They have agreed that DD returns only if HHH returns >> 0 and that HHH is not able to simulated DD to that point. >> >>> Everyone disagreeing with this has dishonestly used to strawman >>> deception to refer to different behavior than DD simulated by HHH. >> >> The topic as specified on the subject line is the behaviour of DD and >> what HHH should report. Simulation is not mentioned there. >> > > I can't put more than a sentence on the subject line. > The context of everything that I have ever be talking about > has ALWAYS included simulation/emulation. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========