Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:04:27 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vqhpqb$6vdc$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqg7tm$3qhke$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqg9fc$3qol2$8@dont-email.me> <vqg9mo$3qhke$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqge88$3radn$2@dont-email.me>
 <85c64c4b79a0c8ff209e41717c9a94e2e9dffc52@i2pn2.org>
 <vqhisc$5r7r$2@dont-email.me>
 <0c8e966e23bb1d71fb16f8f4f8e3b78cc8342a23@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:04:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ffa3f7c8a9c06536bf515dd54724b6f7";
	logging-data="228780"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zsmj5nK56zAiNcs+bSBOu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nci60+inE/J4Ccogp3KPmJ5aM4Q=
In-Reply-To: <0c8e966e23bb1d71fb16f8f4f8e3b78cc8342a23@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250308-2, 3/8/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5708

On 3/8/2025 8:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 08:06:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/8/2025 3:17 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:40:56 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 3/7/2025 8:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 9:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 7:52 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DEFLECTION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE SHIT!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and running HHH(DD) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>>>>>>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret'
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject WILL
>>>>>>>>>> NOT BE TOLERATED.
>>>>>>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction
>>>>>>>>> (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct
>>>>>>>>> execution does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.
>>>>>>>> *set X*
>>>>>>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination analyzer
>>>>>>>> calls the simulator that is simulating itself
>>>>>>> Not an issue, since termination analyzers don't exist.
>>>>>> I thought that you demonstrated knowledge of these things.
>>>>>> Maybe I was wrong.
>>>>> We know termination analyzers don't exist because no algorithm exists
>>>>> that maps the halting function:
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>>>>> directly
>>>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>>>> AProVE seems to be the leading authority on what you say DOES NOT
>>>> EXIST
>>> It isn't claimed to be total. Have you tried running it on itself or on
>>> a program similar to DD (instead of calling HHH, ...)?
>> Termination analyzers are not required to be infallible.
> Neither do they disprove the undecidability of halting.
> 

The actual behavior that Halt7.c specifies combined with
the semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves:

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer