Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:39:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8d6c1b8d100445e23c8e61f3366eeac1500dfc94@i2pn2.org>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me>
 <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org>
 <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>
 <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me>
 <a346224cd5d8b4001580eb6e5ff8783e58c9b7f5@i2pn2.org>
 <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me>
 <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me>
 <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org>
 <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me>
 <104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me>
 <a5f81886d091790185fb6434782dba91ad075fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me>
 <f4f7163b6a6afcf9886f9d72d5b06075c0592338@i2pn2.org>
 <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me>
 <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org>
 <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me>
 <b8e7a597f05663513a7b08172a8f2f66a696e358@i2pn2.org>
 <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me>
 <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me> <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4120960"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 7/9/25 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/9/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 08.jul.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2025 17:07, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return an answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been told about this dozens of times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the F is wrong with you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you don't understand those words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> completion, but that it needs to be able to actually 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROVE that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that its input actually specifies.
>>>>> Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't
>>>>> call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
>>>>> similar) simulator that would *not* abort.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches that part of the specification and the final halt 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
>>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>>>>>>>> *This code proves that you are wrong*
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
>>>>>>>>>>>> are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at 
>>>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its
>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of DDD and returns 0,
>>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had 
>>>>>>>>>> good C++
>>>>>>>>>> skills.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How is it "Counter-Factual"?
>>>>>>>>> It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
>>>>>>>>    always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>>>>>>>> That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would 
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> your error.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a reading comprehension problem.
>>>>>> When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a 
>>>>>> single
>>>>>> word without being dishonest.
>>>>>> "No, that code proves that HHH as defined
>>>>>>      always aborts its simulation of DDD"
>>>>>> If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
>>>>>> your lack of sufficient technical competence.
>>>>> Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not
>>>>> being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?
>>>>
>>>> This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and 
>>>> regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to 
>>>> logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if 
>>>> you understood xxx you would realise it is true".
>>>>
>>>
>>> All of my claims are easily verified facts to those
>>> with the capacity to verify them.
>>
>> Again changing the meaning of the words. Here 'capacity' seems to mean 
>> the ability to ignore the facts.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002192] 55             push ebp
>>> [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
>>> [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
>>> [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
>>> [000021a3] c3             ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>> This is not the full program. 
> 
> It need not be a full program.
> All that needs to be known is that
> DDD is emulated by HHH using an x86 emulator.
> 
>> It refers in the call instruction to address 000015d2, which is not 
>> shown here.
> 
> *It is shown here*
> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
> Because we have multiple levels of emulation the
> instructions of each level are mixed together as
> they actually occur in the execution trace.
> 
> None of these are relevant.
> *The only thing that is relevant is this portion*

Except the below isn't actually a correct simulation, as that isn't what 
a call HHH does.

I guess you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking 
about and just make you you lies.

> 
>   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
>   address   address   data      code       language
>   ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
> [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
> [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> 
> New slave_stack at:1038c4
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
> [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> New slave_stack at:14e2ec
> [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========