Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 18:11:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
 <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me> <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me> <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me> <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me> <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me> <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me> <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me> <vvdo96$3lapa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvdr87$3n3t4$1@dont-email.me> <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 01:11:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5137430f56269cd3e6381ddf24cf46";
	logging-data="15532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+HCNeujhfAv1+Hs9tspArd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m6Lu/8JxMRM9ZO/f1Kya3FMy/ng=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250506-6, 5/6/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vve3mf$3vva3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2025 7:14 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2025 1:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 12:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/05/2025 00:29, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is the problem incorrect specification that creates
>>>>>>>> the contradiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. The contradiction arises from the fact that it is not 
>>>>>>> possible to construct a universal decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everyone here insists that functions computed
>>>>>>>> by models of computation can ignore inputs and
>>>>>>>> base their output on something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think anyone's saying that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you don't read so well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the exact steps for DD to be emulated by HHH
>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language?
>>>>>> *Only an execution trace will do*
>>>>>
>>>>> The exact same steps for DD to be emulated by UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _DD()
>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>
>>>> Machine address by machine address specifics
>>>> that you know that you cannot provide because
>>>> you know that you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that HHH 
>>> aborts, 
>>
>> When you trace through the actual steps you
>> will see that this is counter-factual.
> 
> No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of the two 
> traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed IDENTICAL line 
> for line up to the point where HHH decided to discontinue simulating.  

That is counter-factual.
HHH1(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns.
HHH(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return.

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     *would never stop running unless aborted* then

     *input D* refers to the actual HHH/DD pair

     *would never stop running unless aborted*
      refers to the hypothetical HHH/DD pair where
      HHH and DDD are exactly the same except that
      this hypothetical HHH does not abort the
      simulation of its input.

> The trace by UTM continued further, with DD returning some time later.
> 

The above HHH1(DD) is this UTM.

The DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
Not even after an infinite number of steps of correct emulation.

> You seem to have blanked this from your memory, presumably because the 
> knowledge was too traumatic for you to absorb.
> 
> Mike.
> 
>>
>> That you lack the technical knowledge required
>> to trace through the steps and say that I am
>> wrong anyway is a reckless disregard for the truth.
>>


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer