Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 09:35:55 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <vj8r0r$s8mo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <via6qe$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$1@dont-email.me> <vj6i9q$cdar$1@dont-email.me> <vj6sb8$e4cs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a3b3035abd5c2cded22033680e274bea";
	logging-data="926424"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HV8ilzLWWDZH7aTNXfmUn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Wnxc/b3YuJOnNWQYiiybm5WYvXU=
Bytes: 7718

On 2024-12-09 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said:

> On 12/9/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-12-08 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> No, they not. They have agreed that DD returns only if HHH returns
>> 0 and that HHH is not able to simulated DD to that point.
>> 
>>> Everyone disagreeing with this has dishonestly used to strawman
>>> deception to refer to different behavior than DD simulated by HHH.
>> 
>> The topic as specified on the subject line is the behaviour of DD and
>> what HHH should report. Simulation is not mentioned there.
> 
> I can't put more than a sentence on the subject line.

What you did put there specifies that the halting problem is on topic
and therefore is not "strawman".

-- 
Mikko