Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Correcting the definition of the halting problem --- Computable
 functions
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:29:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <be755f86ec2121f6aed1deb1ac57721d4f42db23@i2pn2.org>
References: <vr1shq$1qopn$1@dont-email.me> <vrbckn$23f4t$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbtiq$2j07c$2@dont-email.me> <vrc3ud$2p461$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrc4nu$2m36k$5@dont-email.me> <vrkc2m$24ft6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrkdij$25f9f$3@dont-email.me> <vrlt36$3haib$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrn237$im1e$1@dont-email.me> <vrn67b$md49$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb974817db8e02049daa5604d725300154e33ad1@i2pn2.org>
 <vrps14$35a4m$2@dont-email.me>
 <eab11e8806c669d296bff986870bdc6abdbb2fef@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqicu$3s258$1@dont-email.me>
 <30c2beae6c191f2502e93972a69c85ff227bfd03@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrs79$11a56$7@dont-email.me> <vrrsta$tdm5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs264$1a43i$1@dont-email.me> <vrs54q$1d1o2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrse90$1jr8u$1@dont-email.me> <vrsk13$1q39o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrsn62$1rblu$2@dont-email.me> <vrsnhu$1q39o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vrsodl$1rblu$3@dont-email.me>
 <e521a1335160c79dcc5d375738028f4deecda264@i2pn2.org>
 <vru9er$38ob9$6@dont-email.me>
 <bec56cbb36a8107632b0433b26025d55251b9217@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvbt2$aq8m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 01:42:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1768182"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vrvbt2$aq8m$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4333
Lines: 58

On 3/25/25 6:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/25/2025 4:29 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:01:14 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/25/2025 3:47 AM, joes wrote:
>>
>>>> A pure simulator can not limit the number of steps. Also III doesn't
>>>> halt in, say, 3 steps. Why should III call a different instance that
>>>> doesn't abort, when it is being simulated?
>>>>
>>> The fact that the same states in the program-under-test keep repeating
>>> such that the program-under-test cannot possibly reach its own final
>>> halt state proves that program-under-test does not halt.
> 
>> They don't repeat, though, not in the same stack frame. And the test
>> program is part of the program under test. Can you answer my question?
>>
> 
> Your question was incorrect.

No, YOUR question is incorrect as regards a Halt Decider, as it is just 
a strawman.

The question for a Halt Decider isn't what the decider can see in its 
own (partial) emulation, but what would be seen giving that identical 
COMPLETE input (thus must includeing the code for the called function) 
to a COMPLETE emulator.

> 
> _III()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> The first four instructions of the finite string
> of machine code at machine address 00002172 are
> repeated until EEE reaches its finite limit.
> 


I guess you are admitting you don't understand what a correct emulation 
is, especially per the defintion of the x86 langugage.

The ONLY correct emulation of the call EEE instruction would be to 
continue the emulation at the address of EEE, that is 000015d2.

IF that isn't part of the full input, then the input can not be 
correctly emulated, as it wasn't actually a program.

If that is part of the full input, then changing it, will of course have 
the possiblity of changing the behavior, and since HHH and EEE are not 
the exact same program, this says nothing about the DDD that was given 
to HHH and which calls that same version of HHH.

Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupidity.