Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly is to say Halting,
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 19:33:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4727547b5147a174181be75c783283fcb34e64e8@i2pn2.org>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
 <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org>
 <v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me> <tiuiaj5jf0jqcfcfntko5hufisp8mb93bm@4ax.com>
 <v8bu91$18b7k$2@dont-email.me>
 <ddb7a467da20b6a6bd90aee9735a62ae68cac50e.camel@gmail.com>
 <v8f0ni$204k7$1@dont-email.me>
 <eefa5a7ed98b6dbdb82eede413b81fc726c94178@i2pn2.org>
 <v8fv5n$25l0a$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 23:33:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1146413"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8fv5n$25l0a$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3652
Lines: 62

On 8/1/24 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2024 6:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/31/24 11:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
>>>>> it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
>>>>> to be non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But how do you determine it is non-halting?
>>>>
>>>> As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
>>>>
>>> I have done this thousands of times and after someone
>>> has read these thousands of times they say that I never
>>> said it once.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>> reach its return instruction then it never halts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But only *IF*  HHH *DOES* correctly emulate its input, which means it 
>> can't abort its emulation,
> 
> *No stupid it has never meant that*
> 
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>      *simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D*
>      *until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never*
>      *stop running unless aborted*
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> 

Really, do you have a source for that?

I say it does, and that follows from the DEFINITION of the only thing 
described in Computation theory as a "correct simulator", which is the 
UTM, which BY DEFINITION behaves EXACTLY like the machine it is 
simulating, even if that machine is non-halting, thus it can not abort 
its simulation.

You r claim is just another your your uncounted false claims that you 
have absolutely no support for, and don't even try to justify, because 
you know you are just making them up.

Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be a LIAR.

I will say, your subject at least is honest this time, the CORRECT 
answer for HHH is to say Halting, unfortunatly, that isn't what it says.