Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:39:07 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <105obar$hate$6@dont-email.me>
References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me>
 <eed26ffea811a639a76d0184321c57eafba746cd@i2pn2.org>
 <pI4fQ.147044$gKRf.71824@fx12.ams4> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me>
 <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <105ljhk$9si$1@news.muc.de>
 <105lkj4$3v8t8$13@dont-email.me> <105lnn2$2srt$1@news.muc.de>
 <105lpsd$1mvr$1@dont-email.me> <105m9me$2phf$1@news.muc.de>
 <105mcl3$48m9$1@dont-email.me> <105ms6j$333bs$1@dont-email.me>
 <105n1ie$bbj9$1@dont-email.me> <4MKfQ.127467$uM3d.71356@fx39.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 17:39:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a14401adad5651a253e4d054a1d0c031";
	logging-data="568238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Ghv/Ryxqb+54y69W8vXzi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZCkh/TS9d2SY7xeoj/FYyCzyqxM=
In-Reply-To: <4MKfQ.127467$uM3d.71356@fx39.iad>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250722-2, 7/22/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/22/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/21/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/21/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/21/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> words you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it 
>>>>>>>>>>> should.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people
>>>>>>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars
>>>>>>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the 
>>>>>>>>> kind. They
>>>>>>>>> are merely things, often false, you would like to be true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said*
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> very obvious that HHH cannot simulate
>>>>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times 
>>>>>>> over by
>>>>>>> several people.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your 
>>>>>>> language, which
>>>>>>> could be construed to mean practically anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code
>>>>>> of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according
>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively
>>>>>> proves that this emulation is correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie. 
>>>>> Whatever HHH
>>>>> might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove" that the
>>>>> emulation is correct.  To prove that is likely impossible in 
>>>>> principle,
>>>>> that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192
>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> Which isn't a program, you need to include the code for HHH.
>>>
>>
>> *Yet again your attention deficit disorder*
>> I have told you countless times that all of
>> the machine code for every function is in
>> the same global memory space of halt7.obj.
> 
> Doesn't matter what "is in the memory space", what matters is what is 
> considedred part of the program, and thus part of the input.
> 

Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless
HHH aborts its emulation of DDD.

HHH emulates DDD and then emulates itself emulating DDD
until it sees that this emulated emulated DDD calls
HHH(DDD) to do this again.

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