Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 16:10:42 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <v8g513$26s53$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$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>
 <v8bu91$18b7k$2@dont-email.me>
 <ddb7a467da20b6a6bd90aee9735a62ae68cac50e.camel@gmail.com>
 <v8f0ni$204k7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fehe$22ege$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8fssh$24rl1$5@dont-email.me> <v8g0l3$24u77$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8g14o$25l0a$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 16:10:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16";
	logging-data="2322595"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181vBj3HwGDPRLJLhuuIH3w"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HqMC3TGJbQFDK0yXc0NBF6i+umw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v8g14o$25l0a$9@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3602

Op 01.aug.2024 om 15:04 schreef olcott:
> On 8/1/2024 7:56 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:51 schreef olcott:
>>> On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But how do you determine it is non-halting?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> I have done this thousands of times and after someone
>>>>> has read these thousands of times they say that I never
>>>>> said it once.
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its return instruction then it never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But a correct simulation is impossible.
>>>
>>> When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies
>>> then HHH is correct.
>>>
>>
>> But since HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language (by 
>> skipping instructions of a halting  program) it is incorrect.
>>
> 
> Only a freaking moron would believe that a non
> terminating input should be simulated forever.
> 

We are not talking about your dreams of a non aborting HHH. We are 
talking about an aborting HHH which terminates.
So, who is the freaking moron talking about non-terminating input?
Dreams are no substitute for fact or for logic.
Skipping the last cycle of the simulation of HHH, which aborts after two 
cycles, is a deviation from the semantics of the x86 language.
But, you are a slow learner. Probably you will repeat the same error 
another thousand times.