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: Wed, 7 May 2025 10:48:15 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vvfvbv$130t3$8@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.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>
 <vvbjjg$1kegb$1@dont-email.me> <vvbk93$1l4cf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbkft$1kegb$4@dont-email.me> <vvbl71$1ljaj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbma3$1kegb$5@dont-email.me> <vvbmp0$1ljaj$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbqd5$1tr5o$1@dont-email.me> <vvbrha$1us1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5dffdb99fdbfe0cd74914de4d51abe0aa439e7d@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdj0r$3cbpq$9@dont-email.me> <vvf73c$tv4n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 17:48:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5137430f56269cd3e6381ddf24cf46";
	logging-data="1147811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/hMs5vWBKMo75YnR3XAG6O"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XKVvrq4F2Njvw09azKiawXc7WvQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-2, 5/7/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vvf73c$tv4n$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/7/2025 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-05-06 18:05:15 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> That everyone here thinks that HHH can simply ignore
>> the rules of the x86 language and jump over the "call"
>> instruction to the "ret" instruction seems quite stupid
>> to me.
> 
> The halting problem does not prohibit such skip so in that sense
> it is OK.
> 
> However, in order to correctly determine whether DD halts
> it may need to know whether the called HHH returns and what it
> returns if it does.
> 

The call from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.

The recursive emulation just keep getting deeper until
HHH correctly recognizes that DD would never stop running
in the hypothetical case that this HHH never aborted.

> When discussing the situation we need not consider what happens
> during the execution of HHH. We do know that HHH returns if it
> really is a halt decider or any other decider. 

The fully operational code has shown 100% of all of
the details of this for three years.

The call from DD correctly emulated by HHH to
HHH(DD) cannot possibly return. This makes the
self-contradictory part of DD unreachable.

> We also know that
> if it returns it either returns zero or someting else. The code
> of DD shows that it halts if HHH(DD) returns zero and does not
> halt fi HHH(DD) returns non-zero or does not return at all.
> 

DD cannot possibly
*do the opposite of whatever value that HHH returns*
because this code is unreachable from DD correctly
emulated by HHH.

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