Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Bad faith and dishonesty
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 11:43:01 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <10196ml$3piii$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$B6tf.610565@fx02.ams4> <100uct4$184ak$1@dont-email.me> <100v9ta$1d5lg$7@dont-email.me> <1011eai$1urdm$1@dont-email.me> <10121bt$22da5$4@dont-email.me> <8bb5266e35845a4d8f2feb618c0c18629c04e4e7@i2pn2.org> <1012oj1$278f8$1@dont-email.me> <1196d9de2e2aebc1b6d1a85047192e8ea1aeb1f1@i2pn2.org> <10137lv$2djeu$1@dont-email.me> <1013tkq$2h8vj$3@dont-email.me> <1014ls5$2lsi8$7@dont-email.me> <1016hsk$35agb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 10:43:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a08f6d3140900beb7898da3b9cde3d9a";
	logging-data="3983954"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/w+M//wKWDOhr6zI0Kp0aM"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Q6sjf8GqBzQYFZV2QlsSyBjiaVk=

On 2025-05-28 08:35:31 +0000, Fred. Zwarts said:

> Op 27.mei.2025 om 17:31 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/27/2025 3:37 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2025 om 04:22 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/26/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/26/25 6:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/26/25 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/26/2025 5:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-25 14:36:26 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/25/2025 1:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-24 01:20:18 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> So much bad faith and dishonesty shown in this forum that myself and Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott have to fight against.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Everything here seems to be dishonesty and protests against dishonesty.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you could remove all dishonesty the protests woud stop, too, and
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing would be left.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>>>>>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>>>>>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Then acknowledge that DDD simulated by HHH according
>>>>>>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I have never claimed that your HHH can simulate DDD to from the beginning
>>>>>>>>> to end.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am asking you to affirm that I am correct about this point.
>>>>>>>> DDD simulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86
>>>>>>>> language cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>> final halt state, thus is correctly rejected as non-halting.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But you have to affirm first that HHH *IS* a program that does that, 
>>>>>>> and can't be "changed" to some other program, and that DDD is 
>>>>>>> "completed" to contain that same code.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Of course, once you define that HHH is such a program,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Unless HHH(DDD) aborts its emulation of DDD then
>>>>>> DDD() and HHH() never stop running proving that
>>>>>> the input to HHH(DDD) SPECIFIES NON-TERMINATING
>>>>>> BEHAVIOR THAT MUST BE ABORTED.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> But since HHH(DDD) DOES abort its emulation of DDD, it is a fact that 
>>>>> DDD() will halt.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> *Termination analyzers PREDICT behavior dip-shit*
>>>> It is a tautology that every input that must be
>>>> aborted to prevent the infinite simulation of this
>>>> input DOES SPECIFY NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR.
>>>> 
>>> Counter-factual. There is no need to prevent infinite simulation, 
>>> because the input includes DDD with all functions called by DDD, 
>>> including the code in Halt7.c that specifies the abort.
>> 
>> Unless the outmost HHH aborts then none of them
>> abort because they all of the exact same machine code.
> 
> Only when you also change the input. Changing input from a HHH that 
> aborts to a HHH that does not abort is changing the subject.

The input is not actually changed. The analyzer just doesn't read all of
it and uses a counter-factual hypothesis about the unread part.

-- 
Mikko