Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 08:35:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 175
Message-ID: <104lr65$7l4q$9@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>
 <104lbkv$13ioh$4@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 15:35:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2110c108bc12e4dcc4330d3f9add4534";
	logging-data="251034"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rCkbuU0jwttIB61VS+i/1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:swrQFDLQUeuQvQ6JW0Iw+AsSRA0=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250709-6, 7/9/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/9/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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 need not be a full program.
All that needs to be known is that
DDD is emulated by HHH using an x86 emulator.

> It refers in the call instruction to 
> address 000015d2, which is not shown here.

*It is shown here*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
Because we have multiple levels of emulation the
instructions of each level are mixed together as
they actually occur in the execution trace.

None of these are relevant.
*The only thing that is relevant is this portion*

  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)

New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

>  From other sources, such as 
> Halt7.c, we know that this is the code for a HHH that aborts and returns 
> a value 0. 

It is impossible for any HHH to return any value
to any simulated DDD. The code completely proves this.

> When we use that fact, we see that a correct simulation would 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========