Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 13:49:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <10221jl$37t34$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <1021jls$32035$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021jr1$3327l$7@dont-email.me> <1021jvn$32035$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021k32$3327l$9@dont-email.me> <1021k8c$32035$3@dont-email.me>
 <1021kgp$34oo9$1@dont-email.me> <1021klt$34pgj$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021kst$34oo9$2@dont-email.me> <1021l77$34pgj$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021m3r$34oo9$3@dont-email.me> <1021oh9$35mm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021ona$35nsp$1@dont-email.me> <1021ot3$35mm5$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021pcu$35nsp$2@dont-email.me> <1021prr$35mm5$3@dont-email.me>
 <1021rpd$36co9$1@dont-email.me> <102208q$37hjl$1@dont-email.me>
 <10220qt$37mll$1@dont-email.me> <102218h$37hjl$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 20:49:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3404900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Os7Oxp8G42Z+oTfKGt/jM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rDRJ/9Pk3D9OW97YMzjHW2GkX24=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-4, 6/7/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <102218h$37hjl$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/7/2025 1:43 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2025 1:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2025 1:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:37 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2025 12:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:20 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 12:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:14 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:17 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:08 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:56 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH1(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00002183 ; DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000015c3 ; HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these match*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002183.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002190.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates is at the machine address of 000015c3, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are not actually paying any attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very much paying to attention to the fact that you 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated that the code of the function H is not part of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and that you're therefore not working on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I said things that I never said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that the instruction at address 000015c3 is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the input, which means the input to HHH is not an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm, and therefore has nothing to do with the halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really should be honest about not working on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that the input to HHH is a description/ 
>>>>>>>>>>> specification of algorithm DDD consisting of the fixed code 
>>>>>>>>>>> of the function DDD, the fixed code of the function HHH, and 
>>>>>>>>>>> the fixed code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS 
>>>>>>>>>>> level, and that HHH must therefore report on the behavior of 
>>>>>>>>>>> the algorithm described/ specified by its input?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed DDD() would never stop running
>>>>>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DDD) would never stop running
>>>>>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thus conclusively proving that the input to HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is not an algorithm, as you have admitted above, and therefore 
>>>>>>>>> has nothing to do with the halting problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> People might actually take you seriously if you stopped lying 
>>>>>>>>> about that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevent, as you're not working on the halting problem by your 
>>>>>>> own admission:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have correctly refuted the conventional proofs of
>>>>>> the Halting Problem
>>>>>
>>>>> No you haven't, as you're not actually working on the halting 
>>>>> problem as you've admitted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This *is* the architecture of the algorithm.
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>      If simulating halt decider H
>>>
>>> And since you don't have a halt decider, as halt deciders work with 
>>> algorithms which your HHH doesn't, you're not working on the halting 
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> If you would just be honest about that you might actually be taken 
>>> seriously.
>>
>> If you would quit being dishonest we could get to closure.
>>
> 
> Closure would be you admitting that you're not working on the halting 
> problem.
> 

Are you going to admit that you lied about the
fact that I have not specified my algorithm?

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