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: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 22:51:44 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f8044b674f1ef6e7dd696cba1a5ea18605089071@i2pn2.org>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
 <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me> <vvcl54$2lap7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvd9tn$37t3c$1@dont-email.me>
 <d9781891e41d9a52c7a54d99ebdaea47c6e2e5a2@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdl2g$3i09b$1@dont-email.me>
 <8e653aea60ac1e508df9d8b51baafa5e0f38f6d7@i2pn2.org>
 <vvggin$17q6h$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 02:51:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3599742"; 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: <vvggin$17q6h$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/7/25 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:40:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/6/2025 10:53 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 06 May 2025 10:29:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 5/6/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-05-05 17:37:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The above example is category error because it asks HHH(DD) to
>>>>>>> report on the direct execution of DD() and the input to HHH
>>>>>>> specifies a different sequence of steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it does not. The input is DD specifides exactly the same sequence
>>>>>> of steps as DD. HHH just answers about a different sequence of steps
>>>>>> instead of the the seqeunce specified by its input.
>>>> As agreed to below:
>>>>
>>>>> <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
>>>>>
>>>>> *input D* is the actual input *would never stop running unless
>>>>> aborted* is the hypothetical H/D pair where H does not abort.
>>>
>>>> H should simulate its actual input D that calls the aborting H, not a
>>>> hypothetical version of D that calls a pure simulator.
>>>>
>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> refers to the same HHH that DD calls yet this hypothetical HHH does not
>>> abort.
>> Then it is not the same HHH.
>>
> 
> It is the exact same HHH/DD pair except that this
> hypothetical HHH never aborts.

And thus it is the ORIGIANAL DD that calls the ORIGINAL HHH that does 
abort, and thus the hypothetical HHH sees the end, just like HHH1.

> 
>>>>> You cannot possibly show the exact execution trace where DD is
>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH and this emulated DD reaches past its own
>>>>> machine address [0000213c].
>>>
>>>> Duh, no simulator can simulate itself correctly. But HHH1 can simulate
>>>> DD/HHH.
>>> HHH does simulate itself correctly yet must create a separate process
>>> context for each recursive emulation.
>>> Each process context has its own stack and set of virtual registers.
> 
>> No, HHH simulates only one program. 
> 
> HHH correctly emulates DD and correctly emulates itself
> emulating DD. This is two C functions and zero programs.
> 

And then aborts, and thus never was a correct emulation of the input.

And admitting you never were using program just proves that all your 
logic is lies, as you are supposed to be working with two PROGRAMS.

Sorry,  you just sunk your proof to the bottom of that lake of fire 
where you will join it soon.