Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:09:19 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 250
Message-ID: <10222ov$37hjl$5@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>
 <10221jl$37t34$1@dont-email.me> <10221o1$37hjl$3@dont-email.me>
 <102227a$37t34$2@dont-email.me> <10222b2$37hjl$4@dont-email.me>
 <10222mp$37t34$4@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 21:09:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8019fb51a88e18578f1c4ac331976de2";
	logging-data="3393141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VPk1uNWYk/26FMgJX/FgX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FW9bcgKeoO7/vpilK9Yexg0k5mQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10222mp$37t34$4@dont-email.me>

On 6/7/2025 3:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/7/2025 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2025 1:51 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2025 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========