Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 13:54:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fb357bd1c29b2a026976af23a5f973074d89f684@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
 <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
 <v9nog5$1fe76$1@dont-email.me>
 <0a080ae812729bc25f3c2dab98bb4d9dfac6641d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9npsa$1flup$1@dont-email.me>
 <b2d424392298da7dc7b6c6937f18329f277fcde7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ns6p$1fvsr$1@dont-email.me>
 <0b16013ea170d361a72f11d7cf046bd836b7aea6@i2pn2.org>
 <v9ntpl$1g6ln$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6c7d1e0da17d7a32a37b49cd8c197295cf59c9d@i2pn2.org>
 <v9o14j$1gkn7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:54:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2803750"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9o14j$1gkn7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5877
Lines: 118

On 8/16/24 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/16/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I must go one step at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were 
>>>>>>>>>>>> discussing
>>>>>>>>>>>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> stay
>>>>>>>>>>>> at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
>>>>>>>>>>> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
>>>>>>>>>>> construed that this instance of DDD never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an 
>>>>>>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not at all. never has.
>>>>>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited
>>>>>>>>> simulation would be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that 
>>>>>>>> is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>>>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I guess you aren't working on the Halting Problem, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Halt deciders have always been required to predict what the
>>>>> behavior of their input would be.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls 
>>>> the Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator 
>>>> HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics
>>> of the x86 language.
>>>
>>> _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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which isn't a program, so doesn't HAVE a complete behavior per the 
>> semantics of the x86 language,
>>
> 
> It is isomorphic to a program and to a Turing Machine.
> 

Not it isn't

It is INCOMPLETE, and programs must be COMPLETE.

>> You need to include the code of HHH at 000015d2, and since that code, 
>> as you have provided it elsewhere DOES return to its caller when given 
>> this input, shows that by the x86 semantics, DDD is a halting program.
>>
> 
> I have conclusively proved that it has been obviously
> doing this for three years.

Nope, you have LIE by CLAIMING it,

> 
> THE INPUT TO HHH(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
> RETURN INSTRUCTION THUS DOES NOT HALT.
> 

Only because your input to HHH isn't a program, but crashes on the call 
to an address outside of it.

When DDD acutally calls the HHH that returns the non-halting answer, it 
halts.

PROVEN.

And thus proven that you are just a stupid liar.