Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:01:12 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <563f6f641ba78d2cc609ca8f2a9f9e2807294c5f@i2pn2.org> References: <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org> <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org> <4ccc2cbecfd0e6befd031ed394f1262edd021822@i2pn2.org> <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org> <6d0683c816f5f63b3a17c8a52e9b691eecc143a8@i2pn2.org> <2ebbdef8e9070397a2ec3db6dbc37c16f1fe8923@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 02:01:13 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2272288"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 10648 Lines: 207 On 12/10/24 9:22 AM, olcott wrote: > On 12/10/2024 1:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-12-09 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 12/9/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-12-08 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 12/8/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-12-05 04:20:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month. >>>>>>> There may be an extended pause in my comments. >>>>>>> I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   >>> HHH can't simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is WRONG !!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ITSELF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>> HHH can't simulate itself. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THAT IT CAN DO THIS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But only if your think that wrong answer can be right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did not mention anything about answers my entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems dishonest to me. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer", >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never >>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't given it, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this? >>>>>>>>>>> I could die on the operating table in two weeks! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What's the lie? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable >>>>>>>>>> reference that show it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All you have is your own lies to call it a lie. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you >>>>>>>>>> will have left behind is all your lies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that >>>>>>>>> HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure >>>>>>>> function >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Once we get through this point then we know that DDD >>>>>>> does not halt: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of >>>>>>> the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction >>>>>>> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts. >>>>>>> *This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this >>>>>>> answer as a pure function until after we agree with the >>>>>>> prior point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *In all of the history of the halting problem there* >>>>>>> *have never been a correct return value for this* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DD); >>>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> This is not a useful main. It is sufficient to determine whether HHH >>>>>> returns but not to determine whther it returns the correct value. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When we understand that the first point is correct >>>>>>> then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct. >>>>>>> *This has much has never ever been done before* >>>>>> >>>>>> This is one of the well known methods to prove that the value HHH >>>>>> returns >>>>>> is incorrect. If HHH returns 0 then DD returns 0 but the meaning >>>>>> of 0 in >>>>>> this context is that DD does not halt. THerefore the value >>>>>> returned by >>>>>> HHH is incorrect. >>>> >>>>> Every expert in the C programming language has agreed that DD >>>>> simulated by HHH cannot possibly return. >>>> >>>> No, they not. They have agreed that DD returns only if HHH returns >>>> 0 and that HHH is not able to simulated DD to that point. >>>> >>>>> Everyone disagreeing with this has dishonestly used to strawman >>>>> deception to refer to different behavior than DD simulated by HHH. >>>> >>>> The topic as specified on the subject line is the behaviour of DD and >>>> what HHH should report. Simulation is not mentioned there. >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========