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: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:11:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <10635nr$1h1rc$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> <10606p6$10108$2@dont-email.me>
	<1060bi4$138e1$11@dont-email.me> <1060kqt$10108$3@dont-email.me>
	<1060ns8$168i0$3@dont-email.me> <106228d$1b7ss$2@dont-email.me>
	<1062mc0$1ecv8$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:11:08 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8def02b97a07661a7084fb1295a3208c";
	logging-data="1607532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ROClfhaGO0DUEq01tz9lW"
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NVz3aNHbqEGm4bh4uyVxqkVbPs4=

Am Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:48:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/26/2025 3:05 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:02:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/25/2025 2:10 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

>>>> Oh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.
>>> The actual code has always been based on an x86 emulator that emulates
>>> finite strings of x86 machine code bytes.
>> But does DDD call whatever is behind the name "HHH" or does it call the
>> fixed code that aborts just before the second recursive call? Because
>> DDD calling a modified HHH' is a different program.
> When HHH emulates DDD then DDD calls HHH(DDD) based on whatever code is
> at machine address 000015d2.
Ok, so modifying HHH to simulate further also changes the input DDD,
because it calls the same address. Gotcha.

>>> For three years everyone here acts like it is impossible for them to
>>> understand that the correct emulation of an input that calls its own
>>> emulator HHH(DDD) can possibly be different than the emulation of the
>>> same input that does not call its own emulator HHH1(DDD).
>> It is not impossible to understand. It is wrong.
> Since the execution trace conclusively proves that it is correct your
> mere intuition to the contrary is proven to be incorrect.
The trace only shows it is different. It remains to be shown that the
abort was correct.

>> If we prefix all programs we pass to HHH with DDD, they should not be
>> aborted as if the were the same.
>> If HHH were a correct simulator, it would produce the same behaviour as
>> an UTM. (HHH1 is the same as HHH, right?)
Right?

-- 
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.