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: Fri, 30 May 2025 12:16:50 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <101bt22$dklb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <m99YP.725664$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> <101782n$39etk$6@dont-email.me> <598498aff364c9e1b90a9db1e18bd1e27a18b993@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 11:16:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="30194b9ca93057da22fe329aa8d4529a";
	logging-data="447147"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181enshH8la20QpjV2E8Ekn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3LnLSh9SxacxWi20AMz17ujWmpU=

On 2025-05-29 01:37:49 +0000, Richard Damon said:

> On 5/28/25 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2025 3:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> It either every HHH aborts or no HHH aborts
>> because they all have the same machine code.
> 
> And if every HHH aborts and returns 0, then every DDD will Halt.
> 
> If no HHH aborts, then no HHH ever answers.
> 
> In both cases, it is wrong.

And if every HHH aborts and returns 1 then every DDD will halt. In
this case HHH is right. But in this case HHH is not Olcott's HHH.

-- 
Mikko