Path: ...!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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 21:37:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 108
Message-ID: <v9o9pt$1hmvf$2@dont-email.me>
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 21:37:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="905ef987000159018ac19d993d3552cf";
	logging-data="1629167"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jxNFFTpbiV11ZGoJ8AJtj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:B2q/vYYgnhHq7W17VwOKVzRB0A0=
In-Reply-To: <v9o14j$1gkn7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5949

Op 16.aug.2024 om 19:09 schreef olcott:
> 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.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> THE INPUT TO HHH(DDD) CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
> RETURN INSTRUCTION THUS DOES NOT HALT.
> 
You don't understand that if it fails to reach the end, the simulation 
is incorrect.
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly. You probably know it, 
therefore you cheat with the Root variable, to give the simulated HHH a 
behaviour different from the behaviour of the simulating HHH, so that 
you can keep dreaming of an infinite recursion.