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 15:16:38 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <102236l$37hjl$6@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>
 <10222vb$37t34$7@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 21:16:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8019fb51a88e18578f1c4ac331976de2";
	logging-data="3393141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Sren1m3fxir9Th1wXJ8uC"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+v1GhiscFeFJGTvmRUJHJVSDrUs=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <10222vb$37t34$7@dont-email.me>

On 6/7/2025 3:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 ==========