Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Overview of proof that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies non-halting
 behavior --- point by point
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:45:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <v9g2jm$3uffi$4@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me> <v99lpd$25ri3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9a88e$2923f$2@dont-email.me> <v9b4tr$2rdni$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9cvv5$39tbd$1@dont-email.me> <v9f203$3pfoq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9fl4k$3se8c$2@dont-email.me> <v9fnd9$1ut3$1@news.muc.de>
 <v9fopi$3tfih$1@dont-email.me>
 <ef77ff8d4227299d82df4432496d419fe1131716@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 18:45:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5789d119f15570941a39cdb59159ffa5";
	logging-data="4144626"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18i+Eiu+G0cPMaWaUG5+YHw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ID/O/dEFUHYdK8/KnHBc556N5bU=
In-Reply-To: <ef77ff8d4227299d82df4432496d419fe1131716@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3999

On 8/13/2024 11:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>> (b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting that
>>> That's a lie, too.  I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing
>>> this. Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.
> Beautiful:
>> Through something like mathematical induction we can directly see that
>> DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
>> instruction final halt state.
>> HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited emulation of
>> DDD would ever halt.

> Not really. It should predict whether DDD *by itself* halts, not what
> any simulator does to its encoding. It can trivially predict what
> *itself* returns. By the way DDD's halting depends on HHH.
> 

It is objectively incorrect to disagree with the semantics
of the x86 language when one is assessing whether or not
an emulation of N instructions of an input is correct or
incorrect.

Once you agree to that we proceed to the next step.

When the measure of the behavior of the input is based on
examining N steps of DDD correctly emulated by HHH to
correctly predict the behavior of an unlimited emulation

and DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction final halt state then the input
to HHH(DDD) specifies not halting behavior.

>> Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string specifies DDD
>> never halts.
> DDD halts.
> 
>> DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine code bytes. This
>> requires each HHH to always be at machine address 000015d2.
> It also requires HHH to make up its mind whether it will abort or not.
>> The computation is always reporting whether or not DDD can possibly
>> reach its c3 "ret" instruction at machine address [00002183].
> 


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