Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 16:54:33 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vvnpba$3j0g1$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 16:54:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6132ef5c9a5712f5fb4e052234097a74";
	logging-data="3768833"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+RE0XtCY+F2hdZRgYHYoM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EjYp3XJg3/hXfwzCDalj05s34co=
In-Reply-To: <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 3466

Op 10.mei.2025 om 16:33 schreef olcott:
> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> Look at their replies to this post.
>>> Not a one of them will agree that
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return; // final halt state
>>> }
>>>
>>> When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>> simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
>>> possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>>>
>>> They have consistently disagreed with this
>>> simple point for three years.
>>
>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
>> science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>>
> 
> I created a whole x86utm operating system.
> It correctly determines that the halting problem's
> otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
> 

Another bad dream? The fact is that the input is not 'impossible', but 
that this system ignores most of the input. In particular it ignores the 
important part of the input that has a conditional abort, which makes 
that the input specifies a halting program. That the system does not see 
that part of the specification does not mean that it is not specified. 
It only means that the system is buggy.
It seems that after each bad dream you have forgotten the verifiable 
facts that have been presented to you earlier.