Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 11:09:50 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 111
Message-ID: <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me>
 <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org>
 <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>
 <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me>
 <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org>
 <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me>
 <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me>
 <104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me>
 <a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
 <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
 <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
 <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
 <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
 <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 09:09:52 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="147e628e205a1c4adfe9a9ab290da415";
	logging-data="1166097"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/BZXQC5vvyEMh/hml70reV"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vE8ad+KXiSNz3zcrjK7P3ZqMTDU=
In-Reply-To: <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 08.jul.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott:
> On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 08/07/2025 17:07, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return an answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been told about this dozens of times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the F is wrong with you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you don't understand those words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
>>> Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't
>>> call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
>>> similar) simulator that would *not* abort.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program,
>>>>>>>>>>> because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
>>>>>>>>>>> reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times.
>>>>>>>>>> You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
>>>>>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>>>>>> *This code proves that you are wrong*
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
>>>>>>>>>> are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its
>>>>>>>>> simulation of DDD and returns 0,
>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++
>>>>>>>> skills.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How is it "Counter-Factual"?
>>>>>>> It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
>>>>>>    always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>>>>>> That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know
>>>>>> your error.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?
>>>>
>>>> You have a reading comprehension problem.
>>>> When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a 
>>>> single
>>>> word without being dishonest.
>>>> "No, that code proves that HHH as defined
>>>>      always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>>>> If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
>>>> your lack of sufficient technical competence.
>>> Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not
>>> being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?
>>
>> This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and 
>> regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to 
>> logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if 
>> you understood xxx you would realise it is true".
>>
> 
> All of my claims are easily verified facts to those
> with the capacity to verify them.

Again changing the meaning of the words. Here 'capacity' seems to mean 
the ability to ignore the facts.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55             push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
> 
This is not the full program. It refers in the call instruction to 
address 000015d2, which is not shown here. From other sources, such as 
Halt7.c, we know that this is the code for a HHH that aborts and returns 
a value 0. When we use that fact, we see that a correct simulation would 
continue at 0000219f, using this value and reaching the final halt state.
Of course, HHH fails to do this correct simulation, as you have shown 
many times.