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,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:40:04 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 117
Message-ID: <105q755$8slg$3@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>
 <105obar$hate$6@dont-email.me> <oXXfQ.24202$QtA1.12986@fx16.iad>
 <105pk3r$qppi$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:40:09 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="096fd06c2d10aa311d1c39583c41a806";
	logging-data="291504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uPRLFlwnB9Iqf1cGT1xOT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ha1nOnrE9Wl4kR0KFujCZWQUlwA=
In-Reply-To: <105pk3r$qppi$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:15 schreef olcott:
> On 7/22/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/22/25 11:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> But your HHH DOES stop running.
>>
> 
> Yet you know that you changed the question to a different question.
> 

As usual counter-factual claims without evidence.