Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 11:12:37 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org> <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org> <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org> <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org> <0a080ae812729bc25f3c2dab98bb4d9dfac6641d@i2pn2.org> <0b16013ea170d361a72f11d7cf046bd836b7aea6@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 18:12:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0832828dca420f70d701da47ce3141da"; logging-data="1579703"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ojP2r8i2OEUyd/84aEE4I" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:MrnuIJUdWSZDDEs1cUEDn22TSB0= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <0b16013ea170d361a72f11d7cf046bd836b7aea6@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 4732 On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I must go one step at a time. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were >>>>>>>>> discussing >>>>>>>>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay >>>>>>>>> at that step until we are sure it is understood. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH >>>>>>>> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is >>>>>>>> construed that this instance of DDD never halts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an >>>>>>> unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Not at all. never has. >>>>>> HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited >>>>>> simulation would be. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that is >>>>> the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider >>>>> >>>> >>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE >>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE >>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE >>>> PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE >>>> >>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION >>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION >>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION >>>> IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION >>>> >>> >>> So, I guess you aren't working on the Halting Problem, >> >> Halt deciders have always been required to predict what the >> behavior of their input would be. >> > > Right, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls the > Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator HHH. > You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer