Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 21:28:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vvegg3$89u0$7@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$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> <vvdmqe$3huo6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvdneq$3k2gc$3@dont-email.me>
 <42d875b9727dae90799e064ac33b9e1be866f2b5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 04:28:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5137430f56269cd3e6381ddf24cf46";
	logging-data="272320"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ILu6KCxMv1ID4+lKOWM1Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+SIRyfjftwGEIDn2006EcceHVdE=
In-Reply-To: <42d875b9727dae90799e064ac33b9e1be866f2b5@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250506-6, 5/6/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5583

On 5/6/2025 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/25 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 06.mei.2025 om 20:47 schreef olcott:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you do not understand it, does not mean that it has not been 
>>> provided to you. It has, many times. If you do not know that you are 
>>> wrong, you must be very stupid.
>>
>> Everything besides a machine address by machine
>> address of DD emulated by HHH (according to the
>> rules of the x86 language) where the emulated
>> DD reaches its own "ret" instruction
> 
> In other words, if people don't agree with your fantasy that is just in 
> error, then "they" must be wrong.
> 
> No, it
> 
>>
>> *IS A DISHONEST DODGE AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL QUESTION*
> 
> No, YOU are a dishoneast dodge from the actual question
> 
>>
>> Most of my reviewers switch to rhetoric when they
>> know that they are wrong and still want to disagree.
>> Disagreement (not truth) is their highest priority.
>>
> 
> Nope, that is just you projecting again.

You keep saying the DD emulated by HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language is wrong.

You keep arguing that HHH is required to break these
rules to conform with the common misconception that HHH
is required to report on the direct execution of DD().

How the Hell can breaking the rules specified
by the x86 language possibly be correct?

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