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 14:12:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <10222vb$37t34$7@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> <10222ov$37hjl$5@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 21:12:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2";
	logging-data="3404900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1955TnlJbF/RlOeBGrKRW++"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:A6L3MlrFZPfSxtJJqAFmOnswuF8=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <10222ov$37hjl$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-4, 6/7/2025), Outbound message

On 6/7/2025 2:09 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========