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: Tue, 6 May 2025 22:46:16 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <vvehho$etf4$2@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <5b84f927f8052f5392b625cef9642140d439d1c7@i2pn2.org>
 <vvbs6b$1us1f$3@dont-email.me>
 <1a99b2ee77f8c0d1ff37e5febb47c5be17b2d4fb@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdidg$3cbpq$8@dont-email.me>
 <bf914e91ee1c9d27536cfebf811930e24014cdf3@i2pn2.org>
 <vveh6e$89u0$8@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 04:46:16 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="488932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YZEf5UiFTDpEJPijzRT2V"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bvzVk6g0ky9DN2GIK3keB1ZdARg=
In-Reply-To: <vveh6e$89u0$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 5/6/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2025 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/25 1:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2025 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/25 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2025 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/25 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 10:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>> What constitutes halting problem pathological input:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Input that would cause infinite recursion when using a decider 
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> simulating kind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Such input forms a category error which results in the halting 
>>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> being ill-formed as currently defined.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I prefer to look at it as a counter-example that refutes
>>>>>>> all of the halting problem proofs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which isn't a program until you include the SPECIFIC HHH that it 
>>>>>> refutes, and thus your talk about correctly emulated by HHH is 
>>>>>> just a lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system includes fully
>>>>>>> operational HHH and DD.
>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When HHH computes the mapping from *its input* to
>>>>>>> the behavior of DD emulated by HHH this includes
>>>>>>> HHH emulating itself emulating DD. This matches
>>>>>>> the infinite recursion behavior pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And *ITS INPUT*, for the HHH that answers 0, is the representation 
>>>>>> of a program 
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. This has always been stupidly wrong.
>>>>> The input is actually a 100% perfectly precise
>>>>> sequence of steps. With pathological self-reference
>>>>> some of these steps are inside the termination analyzer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can't be, as the input needs to be about a program, which must, by 
>>>> the definition of a program, include all its algorithm.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there are steps that also occur in the termination analyzer, 
>>>> but they have been effectively copied into the program the input 
>>>> describes.
>>>>
>>>> Note, nothing says that the representation of the program has to be 
>>>> an assembly level description of it. It has to be a complete 
>>>> description, that 100% defines the results the code will generate 
>>>> (and if it will generate) but it doesn't need to be the exact 
>>>> assembly code,
>>>>
>>>> YOU even understand that, as you present the code as "C" code, which 
>>>> isn't assembly.
>>>>
>>>> What you forget is that the input program INCLUDES as its definiton, 
>>>> all of the code it uses, and thus the call to the decider it is 
>>>> built on includes that code into the decider, and that is a FIXED 
>>>> and DETERMINDED version of the decider, the one that THIS version of 
>>>> the input is designed to make wrong.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't change when you hypothosize a different decider looking 
>>>> at THIS input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>      *would never stop running unless aborted* then
>>>
>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> Refers to a hypothetical HHH/DD pair of the same HHH that
>>> DD calls except that this hypothetical HHH never aborts.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but a correct simulation of D does halt, 
> 
> How the Hell is breaking the rules specified
> by the x86 language possibly correct?
> 
> I could say that the sum of 5 + 7 is a dirty sock
> according to the rules of random gibberish.
> 
> When I go by the rules of arithmetic I am proved
> wrong.
> 
> DD <is> emulated by HHH according to the rules
> of the x86 language

False, as you yourself have admitted 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