Path: ...!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: Try and prove that DDD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
 final halt state
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 23:00:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bc6ecea9b38ba88f36f4577ba30f705f502cb285@i2pn2.org>
References: <vvma0u$34vcu$1@dont-email.me> <vvma92$34h6f$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvmb0l$35ds5$1@dont-email.me> <vvmc17$34h6f$5@dont-email.me>
 <vvmctr$39lof$1@dont-email.me> <vvmden$34h6f$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvmdpo$39lof$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 03:22:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3887009"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvmdpo$39lof$4@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5102
Lines: 110

On 5/9/25 10:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/9/2025 9:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/05/2025 03:16, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/9/2025 9:01 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 10/05/2025 02:43, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/9/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/05/2025 02:26, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try to show how DDD emulated by HHH according to the
>>>>>>> rules of the x86 language reaches its own "ret"
>>>>>>> instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, try to find a way to prove that DDD is correctly emulated 
>>>>>> by HHH. Proof by assertion will not do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *The burden of proof is on you*
>>>>
>>>> *guffaw*
>>>>
>>>> You have claimed, have you not, that you have found a major flaw in 
>>>> Peter Linz's proof of the Halting Problem?
>>>>
>>>> The ball is very firmly in your court.
>>>>
>>>>> You claim  that I made a mistake yet have no actual
>>>>> evidence of any actual mistake.
>>>>
>>>> Your halt7.c code has a syntax error. 
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>> That is a dishonest change of subject
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>>> away from
>>> the details of how DDD emulated by any HHH according
>>> to the rules of the x86 language could possibly
>>> reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
>>
>> Before you can get to the x86 instructions, you have to be able to 
>> compile HHH, 
> 
> EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST
> EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST
> EVERY HYPOTHETICAL HHH THAT CAN POSSIBLY EXIST

Nope, not the HHH that begins with:

int HHH(ptr P) {
    static bool flag = 0;
    if (flag) return 0;
    flag = 1;
    // put here code to correctly emulate all the instrucitons of the 
program P

> 
> _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]
> 
> That is a dishonest change of subject away from
> the details of how DDD emulated by any HHH according
> to the rules of the x86 language could possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state.
> 
> ALL rebuttals only have a dishonest change of subject
> as their only basis.
> 
> 

Now, the real problem is that since the input you provide doesm't 
include the code for the HHH that DDD calls, every HHH that looks at 
those instruction is an impure function, and thus your saying they do 
this means my program is allowed.

Otherwise, all you HHH's fail after they reach the call HHH instruciton,

Sorry, this has been pointed out many times, so you know the problem, 
but you just show your stupidity by repeating it and not even trying to 
answer the error pointed out.