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: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:02:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Message-ID: <vvg78b$15i5e$3@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$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>
 <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>
 <vvegg3$89u0$7@dont-email.me>
 <2f87c70ff64c8b83fa2456545e3250930158a3b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vvfu5d$130t3$4@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 20:02:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193AkBfFi9tA+RNK6uWl0TA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:riMF9RSGYdoETG1qr8Os6KqVcTM=
In-Reply-To: <vvfu5d$130t3$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7527

On 5/7/2025 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/25 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Right, because it stops wnen it should not.
>>
>>>
>>> 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().
>>
>> No, it needs to keep to them, which it doesn\'t.
>>
>> Where did I say it must break the rules?
>>
> 
> DD correctly simulated by HHH according to the rules
> of the x86 language

Which it does not do, as you have agreed on 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