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: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:02:25 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <vvg77h$15i5e$2@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$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> <vvb8fm$1a9jr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc4ok$26dgq$1@dont-email.me> <vvcubb$2sk4a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlu8$3j2mn$1@dont-email.me>
 <71e5867aa084276350ffa87b0501b7386cdde6fd@i2pn2.org>
 <vvftdc$130t3$3@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 20:02:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18s/dqHLyfqXkvpmYSoDnH/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2WYAmuGMfApxcbjrebOV0GpEuy8=
In-Reply-To: <vvftdc$130t3$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4245

On 5/7/2025 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 6:33 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:55:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/6/2025 7:12 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2025 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>>>> *EVERYONE IGNORES THIS*
>>>>> It is very simple the mapping from inputs to outputs must have a well
>>>>> defined sequence of steps.
>>>>>
>>>> FALSE!!!
>>>> There is no requirement that mappings have steps to compute them.
>>>>
>>> The requirement is that OUTPUTS must correspond to INPUTS. This requires
>>> that outputs must be derived from INPUTS.
>>>
>>> When DD is correctly emulated by HHH it is only allowed to apply the
>>> specific sequence specified by the x86 language to derive the behavior
>>> specified by this input.
>> Yes, and it is not allowed to just assume HHH doesn't halt.
>>
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> HHH (as every competent C programmer can see)
> sees that DD correctly simulated by HHH 

Is a lie, as you yourself have admitted for the record:



On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH