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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting
 problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 07:23:20 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ce09209f38c8249c9c918897441c07e2ca6a85af@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vi8g7t$85ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee397fde844b6e8f2266885eb1b657ad4da768f8@i2pn2.org>
 <via50f$ju6v$1@dont-email.me>
 <349430b1223591beb2ebea42b5f3a9e64ea8d795@i2pn2.org>
 <via6qe$ju6v$5@dont-email.me>
 <f4f759fcc2f0b701a91e38062c25d16534e470af@i2pn2.org>
 <via804$kfnn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org>
 <via9kk$kpf2$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org>
 <vilrih$3n2q7$2@dont-email.me>
 <b961b7e79a85fcb3bbd058930fef41e582f7acdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vio31i$dg23$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ccc2cbecfd0e6befd031ed394f1262edd021822@i2pn2.org>
 <viposd$u16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd3385b7f379281e5d476701f96e30538ea85802@i2pn2.org>
 <viqua6$16uvh$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0c7$17d36$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d0683c816f5f63b3a17c8a52e9b691eecc143a8@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0sq$17ga3$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ebbdef8e9070397a2ec3db6dbc37c16f1fe8923@i2pn2.org>
 <vir9n1$1cqu9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 12:23:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1387484"; 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: <vir9n1$1cqu9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8382
Lines: 187

On 12/4/24 11:20 PM, olcott wrote:
> There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
> There may be an extended pause in my comments.
> I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.
> 

And thus a 20% chance you will be dead, and all you will have left to be 
remembered by are all your LIES and stupid arguments.

> On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you
>>>>>>>>>>> try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did not mention anything about answers my entire
>>>>>>>>> scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>> thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
>>>>>>>>> seems dishonest to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer",
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
>>>>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
>>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it isn't 
>>>>>> given it, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this?
>>>>> I could die on the operating table in two weeks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the lie?
>>>>
>>>> Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable reference 
>>>> that show it?
>>>>
>>>> All you have is your own lies to call it a lie.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you will 
>>>> have left behind is all your lies.
>>>
>>> Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that
>>> HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure function 
> 
> It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.

No, it proves that HHH incorrectly emulates DDD.

> 
> Once we get through this point then we know that DDD
> does not halt:
> 

But DDD does halt, because when we run DDD, it will halt because your 
HHH that you show WILL return to it

> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
> *This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT*

But HHH doesn't emulated DDD by that criteria, because it *WILL* abort 
its emulation, in violation of the semantics of the x86 language, 
proving tha thar you are nothing but a damned stupid liar.

> 
> We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this
> answer as a pure function until after we agree with the
> prior point.

But why would we agree to a LIE. The alternate *ONLY* HHH that your 
statement is true is the HHH that *NEVER* aborts, but then that HHH 
makes a different PROGRAM DDD (which is what Halting is about, PROGRAMS, 
not non-leaf "C Functions" so your later argument will be also based on 
lies.


> 
> *In all of the history of the halting problem there*
> *have never been a correct return value for this*

Right, there can exist no HHH, that returns the correct answer for the 
DD built on it.

> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
> 
> When we understand that the first point is correct
> then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct.
> *This has much has never ever been done before*

But your first point is irrelevent, because the only HHH that does 
correctly emulate its DD, is the one that never returns, so

> 
> Then after we know that HHH(DD) is correct to return
> 0 for its input we get to applying Mike's idea to
> make HHH a pure function.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========