Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input
 according to this specification
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 07:02:31 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9272c510e5ba8c90f53e2fe469536e4d83f7ef38@i2pn2.org>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me> <1002l5k$2ke1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me> <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me>
 <26659d2b9662b046f302f6dffabb69c087ea177f@i2pn2.org>
 <1003iec$2tnhr$1@dont-email.me>
 <a6a6bf239efb40e8e0937b5afa3df6bfc9a4c554@i2pn2.org>
 <1003osq$2ul9e$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:27:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="449036"; 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: <1003osq$2ul9e$2@dont-email.me>

On 5/15/25 12:00 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/14/25 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/25 3:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:
>>>>>>>> Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts. 
>>>>>>>> Huboy,
>>>>>>>> what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
>>>>>>>> away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) 
>>>>>>>> years.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
>>>>>>>> Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
>>>>>>>> Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I 
>>>>>>>> wanted to
>>>>>>>> point out three things:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
>>>>>>>> input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
>>>>>>>> to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
>>>>>>>> simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, 
>>>>>>> and that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there 
>>>>>>> are bugs, but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug 
>>>>>> (rather than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the 
>>>>>> program's specification. 
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>> Since you DDD isn't a program, since you say that it doesn't include 
>>>> the HHH that it calls, means that you can't use this, since here D 
>>>> *IS* a program, as that is from the defintion of a Halt Decider, its 
>>>> input is the representation OF A PROGRAM.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not notice how all of the rebuttals of this have
>>>>> always committed the straw-man error until yesterday.
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> A correct simulation has always meant that according
>>>>> to the rules of the x86 language HHH must emulate
>>>>> itself emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, which fails at the call to HHH, 
>>>
>>> Liar!
>>>
>>
>> So, how does it LEGALLY do it?
>>
>> The code of HHH is not part of the input, so HHH can not correctly 
>> emulate its input *DDD* and go somewhere else.
>>
> 
> DDD going somewhere is not a part of its own
> behavior yet is an aspect of the behavior that
> DDD specifies.
> 

WRONG. A Program is defined by its algorithm, which is all that it does.

I guess you are just admitting you haven't been talking about computer 
science at all, but just some mythicall POOPS that you can't even define.

> Its not that hard when you give up rebuttal as
> the first priority and instead make an honest
> dialogue the top priority.
> 

No, I give TRUTH the first priorigty, which gives me a lot of work since 
it seems I am talking with someone who doesn't understand what that is.

You, it seems like to talk about your mythological fantasy world where 
aything is possible due to the magical truth fairy that just waves her 
wand and says it is so, even if it creates contradictions. But that is 
ok, as in your world contradictions are true, so everything can be true.