Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 23:45:01 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <916619eca9efaac302dc83d59753075a7691a1d5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
 <08508353c793195b12c3d1ee161d4f98117edeea@i2pn2.org>
 <vq72um$1tapm$4@dont-email.me>
 <78278c992d775e04b5e419a5d91211f60b1d1258@i2pn2.org>
 <vq86l5$23nt0$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 04:45:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2898575"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vq86l5$23nt0$3@dont-email.me>

On 3/4/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>
>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>
>>> *Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
>>
>> No, it proves that the HHH that rejects the input, didn't do a correct 
>> simulation, and thus was looking at the wrong input, because you don't 
>> understand what a program is.
>>
>> DD only is non-halting if *THE* HHH (and there is only one at any 
>> time) never aborts. SInce HHH musts abort its emulation to "reject" 
>> the input, it proves it didn't do the needed correct emulation, and 
>> you are shown to be just a blantant liar.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and answer.
>>>>
>>>> Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that, 
>>>
>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
>>> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
>>> own "ret" instruction.
>>>
>>> Failing to provide the above proves that you are clueless
>>> about this code.
>>>
>>>
>> Nope, I have shown why your logic is wrong, 
> 
> If that was true you could show this with
> something besides rhetoric and double-talk.
> 

That you call all I say as just rhetoric just shows how stupid you are.

WHere is a reference to you criteria as been valid?

Why do you ignore the actual definition of a Halt Decider / Termination 
Analyzer?

You do understand that pure simulation can not work for Termination 
Analysis (except for the special case of no input, where it is just the 
same as Halt Deciding) as you need to prove for *ALL POSSIBLE* inputs, 
which can not be done by simple simulation/emulation.

You just don't understand what you are talking about.