Path: ...!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: Wed, 7 May 2025 21:53:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <vvh6c5$1gq2p$2@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <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>
 <6528755608b2bbe4206f2b8e11c78417ba77dde5@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 04:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f36da193996cadd52a214445b52881fc";
	logging-data="1599577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18H5kN4m7dVB+dMDqy11QX0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4Ms5r/hm6uE1QE9EPvZMo57KWso=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <6528755608b2bbe4206f2b8e11c78417ba77dde5@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6403

On 5/7/2025 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/25 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 cannot possibly halt.
> 
> Which is a non-sense statement, as HHH doesn't correctly simulate its 
> input DD by those rules, as you have demonstarted,
> 

Liar

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