Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 09:17:04 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 304
Message-ID: <09cea75db07408dc9203aca3fb74408ad3a095b4.camel@gmail.com>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me>
	 <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me>
	 <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
	 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
	 <5b14da4260c0b7e3235ce05f752c092fade4d70e.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvnsae$3in62$9@dont-email.me>
	 <11cc09876004107c47467b9481f614f45f450f2c.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvnu9k$3k258$2@dont-email.me>
	 <674a661e498281cca55b322cbd5905a1988a6171.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvnvut$3kher$3@dont-email.me>
	 <088556c03067d8de7184bf88dd01cc6b8c99ba1b.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvo1ni$3l14p$1@dont-email.me>
	 <c09f468e8485c22150cedb12a9010b401f292054.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvo58a$3lnkd$1@dont-email.me>
	 <dc76ef3215a83481dfddc40c466bb9ebc0e77341.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvo709$3m1oc$1@dont-email.me>
	 <b503e969e23dd1b2a6201ba78c82c9ff7906eaae.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvo9e8$3m1oc$3@dont-email.me>
	 <b9cec56c1d257e09fdf8043f02f123a4243de6e1.camel@gmail.com>
	 <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 03:17:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1aa223d640888d616762f0efff606324";
	logging-data="4025365"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ashqjWrKrJTCYcvZwxygd"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Vh/dX1Pjf93qRx2nb0jlIlSc6U=
In-Reply-To: <vvoife$3ofmu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15063

On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 17:03 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2025 4:44 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 14:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > On 5/10/2025 2:02 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 5/10/2025 1:37 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 13:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 1:09 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 12:17 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 12:01 PM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:47 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 11:29 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 11:19 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 11:06 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 10:45 -0500, olcott wrote=
:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 10:28 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2025-05-10 at 09:33 -0500, olcott w=
rote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrot=
e:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look at their replies to this post.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not a one of them will agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > void DDD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return; // final halt state
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When 1 or more instructions of DDD ar=
e correctly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulated by HHH then the correctly s=
imulated DDD cannot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly reach its "return" instructi=
on (final halt state).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > They have consistently disagreed with=
 this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simple point for three years.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess that not even a professor of th=
eoretical computer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > science would spend years working on so=
 few lines of code.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I created a whole x86utm operating system=
..
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It correctly determines that the halting =
problem's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise "impossible" input is actually =
non halting.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > int DD()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 int Halt_Status =3D HHH(DD);
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (Halt_Status)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HERE: goto HERE;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return Halt_Status;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0From I know HHH(DD) decides whether the input DD is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "impossible"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > input
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DD has the standard form of the "impossible" =
input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HHH merely rejects it as non-halting.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said 'merely' rejects it as non-halting.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, POOH do not answer the input of any other f=
unction?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The input that has baffled computer scientists fo=
r 90
> > > > > > > > > > > > > years is merely correctly determined to be non-ha=
lting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when the behavior of this input is measured by HH=
H
> > > > > > > > > > > > > emulating this input according to the rules of th=
e x86
> > > > > > > > > > > > > language.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The same thing applies to the Linz proof yet cann=
ot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be understood until after HHH(DDD) and HHH(DD) ar=
e
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fully understood.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > > HHH(DDD) (whatever) at most says DDD is a pathologi=
cal/midtaken input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Others of what you say are your imagine and wishes,=
 so far so true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > DDD emulated by HHH accor not the 'HHH' that makes th=
e final decision
> > > > > > > > (otherwise, it will be an infinite recursive call which you=
 agreed)
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > > ding to the rules of
> > > > > > > > > > > the x86 language specifies recursive emulation
> > > > > > > > > > > that cannot possibly reach the final halt state
> > > > > > > > > > > of DDD.
> > > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > > I have no problem with that. And, you said HHH merely r=
ejects it as non-halting.
> > > > > > > > > > You had denied HHH can decide the halting property of a=
ny input, except DDD/DD/D..
> > > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > > As long as HHH correctly determines the halt status
> > > > > > > > > of a single input that has no inputs then HHH is
> > > > > > > > > a correct termination analyzer for that input.
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Go it, that is a stronger statement that HHH ONLY decides D=
D.
> > > > > > > > I have no problem with that, but be noticed that the HHH in=
side DD
> > > > > > > > is not the 'HHH' that makes the final decision (otherwise, =
the 'HHH'
> > > > > > > > will be an infinite recursive which cannot make any decisio=
n, which
> > > > > > > > you had agreed)
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > HHH(DD) correctly determines that its input specifies
> > > > > > > recursive emulation when this input is emulated by HHH
> > > > > > > HHH according to the rules of the x86 language.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0From the about, so you are talking about 'the=
 HHH' which does not compute the final
> > > > > > decision.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > HHH does recognize the recursive emulation pattern
> > > > > of DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of
> > > > > the x86 language.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========