Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Any honest person that knows the x86 language can see... predict
 correctly
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:56:02 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v8g0l3$24u77$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v887np$gl15$1@dont-email.me> <v8a2j5$u4t6$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8asse$12hr3$2@dont-email.me> <v8aukp$12grj$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8b00m$12ojm$1@dont-email.me> <v8bchs$15ai5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8bh32$15une$1@dont-email.me>
 <d89f03c5a605f010ec3c83c50137b983dc85848e@i2pn2.org>
 <v8bl2j$16ibk$2@dont-email.me> <tiuiaj5jf0jqcfcfntko5hufisp8mb93bm@4ax.com>
 <v8bu91$18b7k$2@dont-email.me>
 <ddb7a467da20b6a6bd90aee9735a62ae68cac50e.camel@gmail.com>
 <v8f0ni$204k7$1@dont-email.me> <v8fehe$22ege$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8fssh$24rl1$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 14:56:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8c0ac17c3f9e00decd2248743b2f1a16";
	logging-data="2259175"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zauCozworV7kFMIybzb/e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AwZd00359q90oQZQFU4iXptSB2Q=
In-Reply-To: <v8fssh$24rl1$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 2746

Op 01.aug.2024 om 13:51 schreef olcott:
> On 8/1/2024 2:46 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.aug.2024 om 05:51 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/31/2024 10:08 PM, wij wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2024-07-30 at 18:50 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not supposed to be a general solution to the halting problem.
>>>>> it only shows how the "impossible" input is correctly determined
>>>>> to be non halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But how do you determine it is non-halting?
>>>>
>>>> As I know you are even unable to define what 'halt' mean !!!
>>>>
>>> I have done this thousands of times and after someone
>>> has read these thousands of times they say that I never
>>> said it once.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> If DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>> reach its return instruction then it never halts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But a correct simulation is impossible.
> 
> When HHH does what-ever-the-hell the x86 semantics specifies
> then HHH is correct.
> 

But since HHH deviates from the semantics of the x86 language (by 
skipping instructions of a halting  program) it is incorrect.