Path: 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 23:06:41 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <vvh740$1bt2l$4@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <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>
 <vvfvbv$130t3$8@dont-email.me>
 <473b8403ad7286d2ebc8c002d1bd0068412bdc60@i2pn2.org>
 <vvh6d1$1gq2p$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 05:06:41 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a565b5a0e22116f8f680253905402a9a";
	logging-data="1438805"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QX7FwBY6eVFuH7C+sdJjA"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1p3ep6bip0JPJIiRYCB3bW5dqow=
In-Reply-To: <vvh6d1$1gq2p$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/7/2025 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Only because HHH can't be a correct emulator.
>>
> 
> Liar
> 

That would be you:


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