Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 08:22:48 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 172
Message-ID: <vj9irp$109o5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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$1@dont-email.me> <vj8r0r$s8mo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 15:22:49 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7adcf367c8473912e210847e7118e723";
	logging-data="1058565"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GFsKUldclfDngmgjtVsr8"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hb9DoPI87LQ6zR/wwyzxAqPpyFE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241209-6, 12/9/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vj8r0r$s8mo$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8847

On 12/10/2024 1:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
> 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.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========