Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:10:30 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <10606p6$10108$2@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> <105npl8$37i2t$1@dont-email.me>
	<105o4uu$g4mg$4@dont-email.me> <105q7nc$8slg$5@dont-email.me>
	<105qv4j$10rne$1@dont-email.me> <105t0cq$l7mf$2@dont-email.me>
	<105tg6d$1fr8n$7@dont-email.me> <105u8a0$r1ct$3@dont-email.me>
	<105u9a6$1jpvh$2@dont-email.me> <105vd5j$10108$1@dont-email.me>
	<10603io$138e1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:10:31 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54bef8b0515931984a233182a67e605b";
	logging-data="1049608"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RJ4uzgOeTbA4Su0OnKULP"
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cGasOCu8m3pMrUQjJ+0WYFQ1o8o=

Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/25/2025 2:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:41:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/24/2025 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:32:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 
>>>>> Aborting prematurely literally means that after N instructions of
>>>>> DDD are correctly emulated by HHH that this emulated DDD would reach
>>>>> its own emulated "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>>>> What value of N are you proposing?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see: the call to HHH is #4, [waves hands], then another 4
>>>> inside the next level of simulation, and after another 4 the first
>>>> simulated HHH (the one called by the input, not the outermost
>>>> simulator. We are now 3 levels in) decides that enough is enough and
>>>> aborts,
>>>
>>> Thus immediate killing its simulated DDD and everything else that HHH
>>> was simulating thus no simulated DDD or simulated HHH can possibly
>>> ever return no matter how many or how few X86 instructions that the
>>> executed HHH correctly emulates.
>>> This is the part that you fail to understand or understand that I am
>>> correct and disagree anyway.
> 
>> You failed to understand I was talking about the first simulated HHH
>> aborting, not the outermost simulator.
> 
> *I am trying to get you to understand that is impossible*
> The only HHH that can possibly abort is the outermost directly executed
> one.
True if the input changes along with the simulator, but not if we
simulate the fixed input (that aborts after 4+4=8 instructions of DDD,
when we encounter the second nested call to HHH) without prematurely
aborting.
I get that if you change what "HHH" refers to in order do extend the
simulation you necessarily simulate a different input. You don't.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.