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: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input
 according to this specification
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 23:00:05 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a6a6bf239efb40e8e0937b5afa3df6bfc9a4c554@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 03:08:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="402383"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1003iec$2tnhr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

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.

If you were told to measure how much pipe was underground, and you 
measured all the way up to the upstairs bathroom, you just measured the 
wrong thing.

WHen asked about the simulation of "DDD", then you must only look at DDD.

If the code is supposed to be part of what you are to look at, it needs 
to be part of the input.

Since you have EXPLICITLY said it isn't, you can't look at it, unless of 
course you admitt that you logic is based on lying about the defintions 
of things.

Until you actually answer some of these questions, the only possible 
answer is that you are just a liar with no proper basis for your claims.

If you don't understand something I say, ask for clarification.

If you disagree with my definitions, point that out and provide a 
reliable source for something that you do agree with.

Otherwise, you are just proving that you are just a pathological liar.