Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting
 problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 19:41:39 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 206
Message-ID: <vj5hsj$3pnc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <349430b1223591beb2ebea42b5f3a9e64ea8d795@i2pn2.org>
 <via6qe$ju6v$5@dont-email.me>
 <f4f759fcc2f0b701a91e38062c25d16534e470af@i2pn2.org>
 <via804$kfnn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org>
 <via9kk$kpf2$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org>
 <vilrih$3n2q7$2@dont-email.me>
 <b961b7e79a85fcb3bbd058930fef41e582f7acdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vio31i$dg23$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ccc2cbecfd0e6befd031ed394f1262edd021822@i2pn2.org>
 <viposd$u16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd3385b7f379281e5d476701f96e30538ea85802@i2pn2.org>
 <viqua6$16uvh$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0c7$17d36$1@dont-email.me>
 <6d0683c816f5f63b3a17c8a52e9b691eecc143a8@i2pn2.org>
 <vir0sq$17ga3$1@dont-email.me>
 <2ebbdef8e9070397a2ec3db6dbc37c16f1fe8923@i2pn2.org>
 <vir9n1$1cqu9$1@dont-email.me> <vj3tv4$3oe44$1@dont-email.me>
 <vj4sbs$3vc6g$1@dont-email.me>
 <26ffd2c9c54354bb8985e2c917b11eba2afe50e2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2024 02:41:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="849d9448d685e569722f1788fb342e12";
	logging-data="124652"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lR0UaIwAXJ1bysI2T3q1F"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8sQD+XRLwfhvm+ALdEStn87/SUs=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241208-4, 12/8/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <26ffd2c9c54354bb8985e2c917b11eba2afe50e2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 9729

On 12/8/2024 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 12/8/24 2:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 12/8/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-05 04:20:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
>>>> There may be an extended pause in my comments.
>>>> I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.
>>>>
>>>> On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is WRONG !!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not mention anything about answers my entire
>>>>>>>>>>>> scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>> thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems dishonest to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer",
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
>>>>>>>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
>>>>>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it 
>>>>>>>>> isn't given it,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this?
>>>>>>>> I could die on the operating table in two weeks!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the lie?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable 
>>>>>>> reference that show it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you have is your own lies to call it a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you will 
>>>>>>> have left behind is all your lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that
>>>>>> HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure 
>>>>> function
>>>>
>>>> It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Once we get through this point then we know that DDD
>>>> does not halt:
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>>>> *This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT*
>>>>
>>>> We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this
>>>> answer as a pure function until after we agree with the
>>>> prior point.
>>>>
>>>> *In all of the history of the halting problem there*
>>>> *have never been a correct return value for this*
>>>>
>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This is not a useful main. It is sufficient to determine whether HHH
>>> returns but not to determine whther it returns the correct value.
>>>
>>>> When we understand that the first point is correct
>>>> then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct.
>>>> *This has much has never ever been done before*
>>>
>>> This is one of the well known methods to prove that the value HHH 
>>> returns
>>> is incorrect. If HHH returns 0 then DD returns 0 but the meaning of 0 in
>>> this context is that DD does not halt. THerefore the value returned by
>>> HHH is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> Every expert in the C programming language has agreed that DD
>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly return. Everyone disagreeing
>> with this has dishonestly used to strawman deception to refer to 
>> different behavior than DD simulated by HHH.
>>
> 
> Whch is just irrelevent, as the halting question isn't about DD 
> partially emulated by the decider, but about the ACTUAL behavior of the 
> program, or its COMPLETE emulation, of the COMPLETE program the input 
> represent, which INCLUDES the code of the HHH that it calls.
> 
> And, by your definition of what you can "the input" which excludes the 
> explicit mentioning of the code of HHH, we can't even do that, as your 
> input isn't that of a program, but just an unrunable program fragment.
> 

Your ADD may make it impossible for you to pay enough attention.

_DD()
[0000213e] 55             push ebp      // house keeping
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========