Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 18:50:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <v8bu91$18b7k$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
 <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org>
 <v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me> <tiuiaj5jf0jqcfcfntko5hufisp8mb93bm@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 01:50:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d6c56e3cc0e766a5f243fbbf3db0d44a";
	logging-data="1322228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19KMHJLHrcJDgyWYykU6Yut"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7Yz7+kUOXT6yvlwLFXXZsNQ15VE=
In-Reply-To: <tiuiaj5jf0jqcfcfntko5hufisp8mb93bm@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3481

On 7/30/2024 6:45 PM, Mad Hamish wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:13:55 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/30/2024 4:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:05:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:48 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 17:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 9:51 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 30.jul.2024 om 16:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 7/30/2024 1:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-07-29 14:07:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(Infinite_Recursion) and HHH(DDD) show the same non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior pattern in their derived execution traces of their
>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
>>>>>>>>> Hard to believe as their behaviour is so different and you don't
>>>>>>>>> say what pattern the see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Its all in the part that you erased*
>>>
>>>>>>> We all see the differences between these two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They both correctly predict behavior that must be aborted to prevent
>>>>>> the infinite execution of the simulating halt decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Except that the prediction for the second one is wrong. The simulation
>>>>> of an aborting and halting function, like HHH, does not need to be
>>>>> aborted.
>>>> I proved otherwise. When the abort code is commented out then it keeps
>>>> repeating again and again, thus conclusively proving that is must be
>>>> aborted or HHH never halts.
>>> But the abort is not commented out in the running code!
>>>
>>
>> I modified the original code by commenting out
>> the abort and it does endlessly repeat just like
>> HHH correctly predicted.
> 
> Which means that it works in some cases, not all cases
> Which means it doesn't work universally
> 
> So it's not a general solution to the halting problem

It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
to be non halting.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer