Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED.97.119.219.48!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
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 22:43:05 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <vj5sgp$91h5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org>
 <via9kk$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>
 <vj5hsj$3pnc$1@dont-email.me>
 <20518ed2f6e489383fbda6ddf4a0a9ae7314eb9e@i2pn2.org>
 <vj5qtg$8s34$1@dont-email.me> <vj5rnq$8vii$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 04:43:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="97.119.219.48";
	logging-data="296485"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vj5rnq$8vii$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241208-4, 12/8/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10083
Lines: 198

On 12/8/2024 10:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2024 7:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 12/8/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========