Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF
 THAT I AM CORRECT
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:38:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <1036jm0$14sj8$3@dont-email.me>
References: <102n9bo$13mp8$3@dont-email.me> <102om2v$1h6pn$2@dont-email.me>
 <102q5m6$1tklk$1@dont-email.me> <102rcg2$29lrl$1@dont-email.me>
 <102rugu$2doc9$8@dont-email.me> <102u1a5$31q0f$1@dont-email.me>
 <102umo0$369b2$13@dont-email.me> <1030jah$3pfos$1@dont-email.me>
 <1031a1m$3u901$9@dont-email.me> <1033aej$m26r$5@dont-email.me>
 <1033sll$2uqj$2@dont-email.me>
 <4d0b60860a2a1bb37153ada4aad5d3595d1c8fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <10344l1$4ms9$3@dont-email.me>
 <c26ffae53a9518cfe08b7a2083cd75e4c99eac55@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:38:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c33a34d5810729869e79acc5a916ae39";
	logging-data="1208936"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K3tBse46wtVQCRz4f7gat"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dyg8Ycio52I8ZCmYDaAKNVlMd5Y=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250621-4, 6/21/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <c26ffae53a9518cfe08b7a2083cd75e4c99eac55@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though
>>>>>>>>> the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up
>>>>>>>>> the simulation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and over-your-head.
>>> It was an agreement.
>>>
>>>>>>> No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
>>>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and 
>>>>>>> halt,
>>>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
>>>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
>>>>>>> away from the same point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
>>>>> the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
>>>>> when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
>>>>> away from the same point.
>>>> Yes this is factual.
>>> Lol, that was the same paragraph.
>>>
>>>> Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no matter 
>>>> how
>>>> deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
>>>> directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.
>>> Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
>>>
>>
>> That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
>> enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 
> Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it always 
> will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is never a correct 
> simulation by the term-of-art definition.
> 

HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
at least once.

The main computer science definition of halting is
reaching a final halt state, anyone disagreeing is
incorrect. An alternative definition that is easier
for programmers to understand is never stop running.
Any disagreement with these is incorrect.

When there are no N instructions of DDD correctly
simulated by HHH that can possibly reach their final
halt state then it is a verified fact that the input to
HHH(DDD) specifies a non-halting sequence of
configurations. The directly executed DDD() is the
caller of HHH(DDD) thus not its input.

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