Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 23:16:31 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 05:16:31 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0"; logging-data="488932"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+7F8KtjelN7oo0bknrjtIt" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:st5/xS+YYGOjtxwhDni9Gh7142E= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6939 On 5/6/2025 11:11 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/6/2025 9:53 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 5/6/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 7:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 1:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 12:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 06/05/2025 00:29, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is the problem incorrect specification that creates >>>>>>>>>>> the contradiction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The contradiction arises from the fact that it is >>>>>>>>>> not possible to construct a universal decider. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Everyone here insists that functions computed >>>>>>>>>>> by models of computation can ignore inputs and >>>>>>>>>>> base their output on something else. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone's saying that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't read so well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What are the exact steps for DD to be emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>> according to the semantics of the x86 language? >>>>>>>>> *Only an execution trace will do* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The exact same steps for DD to be emulated by UTM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>> [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>>>>>> [00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local >>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402 jz 0000214f >>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe jmp 0000214d >>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5 mov esp,ebp >>>>>>> [00002154] 5d pop ebp >>>>>>> [00002155] c3 ret >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Machine address by machine address specifics >>>>>>> that you know that you cannot provide because >>>>>>> you know that you are wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that >>>>>> HHH aborts, >>>>> >>>>> When you trace through the actual steps you >>>>> will see that this is counter-factual. >>>> >>>> No, it is exactly right. Remember, I posted a comparison of the two >>>> traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed IDENTICAL >>>> line for line up to the point where HHH decided to discontinue >>>> simulating. >>> >>> That is counter-factual. >> >> Dude! :/ I posted the comparison and the traces were the same up to >> the point where HHH discontinued the simulation. How can it be >> "counter-factual"? >> > > HHH1(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns. > HHH(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return. > > A call that returns and a call that cannot possibly > return *are not exactly the same thing* They are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborted, as you yourself admitted on the record: On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM? >>>>> >>>> >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator. >>>> It does not abort. >>> >>> Last chance: >>> >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the >>> emulation performed by HHH1? >> >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron. > > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1. > >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on- >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting. > > Therefore, as per the above requirements: > > LET THE RECORD SHOW > > That Peter Olcott > > Has *officially* admitted > > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously > on record as admitting.