Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input
 according to this specification
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 21:10:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <1003iec$2tnhr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me> <1002l5k$2ke1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me> <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me>
 <26659d2b9662b046f302f6dffabb69c087ea177f@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 04:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="66a8f7019eb14522c3a913b396c0eecb";
	logging-data="3071547"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4vnn8sYjF71f0z7IU5pRT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ap/MInv1R89nMK+WA2djr+MXQgQ=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <26659d2b9662b046f302f6dffabb69c087ea177f@i2pn2.org>

On 5/14/2025 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/14/25 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:
>>>>> Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts. 
>>>>> Huboy,
>>>>> what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
>>>>> away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
>>>>> Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
>>>>> Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
>>>>> point out three things:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
>>>>> input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
>>>>> to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
>>>>> simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>> Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, 
>>>> and that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are 
>>>> bugs, but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>>>>
>>> Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug (rather 
>>> than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's 
>>> specification. 
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>>    HHH(DDD);
>>    return;
>> }
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
> 
> Since you DDD isn't a program, since you say that it doesn't include the 
> HHH that it calls, means that you can't use this, since here D *IS* a 
> program, as that is from the defintion of a Halt Decider, its input is 
> the representation OF A PROGRAM.
> 
>>
>> I did not notice how all of the rebuttals of this have
>> always committed the straw-man error until yesterday.
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>> [00002183] c3         ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>
>> A correct simulation has always meant that according
>> to the rules of the x86 language HHH must emulate
>> itself emulating DDD.
> 
> 
> Right, which fails at the call to HHH, 

Liar!

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer