Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 23:16:31 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <vvejaf$etf4$5@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4>
 <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$1@dont-email.me> <vve4ut$f5c$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvehuu$g8eg$1@dont-email.me> <vvej0u$g8jo$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 05:16:31 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="488932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7F8KtjelN7oo0bknrjtIt"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:st5/xS+YYGOjtxwhDni9Gh7142E=
In-Reply-To: <vvej0u$g8jo$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6939

On 5/6/2025 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2025 9:53 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Dude!  :/  I posted the comparison and the traces were the same up to 
>> the point where HHH discontinued the simulation.  How can it be 
>> "counter-factual"?
>>
> 
> HHH1(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns.
> HHH(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return.
> 
> A call that returns and a call that cannot possibly
> return *are not exactly the same thing*


They are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborted, as you 
yourself admitted on the record:


On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.