Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 16:09:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <vvgi60$1867c$2@dont-email.me>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <vvamqc$o6v5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvan7q$o4v0$1@dont-email.me> <ts5SP.113145$_Npd.41800@fx01.ams4>
 <vvat0g$vtiu$1@dont-email.me> <vvcl54$2lap7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvd9tn$37t3c$1@dont-email.me>
 <d9781891e41d9a52c7a54d99ebdaea47c6e2e5a2@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdl2g$3i09b$1@dont-email.me>
 <8e653aea60ac1e508df9d8b51baafa5e0f38f6d7@i2pn2.org>
 <vvggin$17q6h$2@dont-email.me> <vvgh8p$15i5e$16@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 23:09:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5137430f56269cd3e6381ddf24cf46";
	logging-data="1317100"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+nfCWBYFObBE7sGPL2Ew9O"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T8qWfrMt2yZ68ebMrzfWClWi5Eo=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vvgh8p$15i5e$16@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4137

On 5/7/2025 3:53 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2025 3:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:40:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 5/6/2025 10:53 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Tue, 06 May 2025 10:29:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-05 17:37:20 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above example is category error because it asks HHH(DD) to
>>>>>>>> report on the direct execution of DD() and the input to HHH
>>>>>>>> specifies a different sequence of steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it does not. The input is DD specifides exactly the same 
>>>>>>> sequence
>>>>>>> of steps as DD. HHH just answers about a different sequence of steps
>>>>>>> instead of the the seqeunce specified by its input.
>>>>> As agreed to below:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *input D* is the actual input *would never stop running unless
>>>>>> aborted* is the hypothetical H/D pair where H does not abort.
>>>>
>>>>> H should simulate its actual input D that calls the aborting H, not a
>>>>> hypothetical version of D that calls a pure simulator.
>>>>>
>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>>>> refers to the same HHH that DD calls yet this hypothetical HHH does not
>>>> abort.
>>> Then it is not the same HHH.
>>>
>>
>> It is the exact same HHH/DD pair except that this
>> hypothetical HHH never aborts.
>>
>>>>>> You cannot possibly show the exact execution trace where DD is
>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH and this emulated DD reaches past its own
>>>>>> machine address [0000213c].
>>>>
>>>>> Duh, no simulator can simulate itself correctly. But HHH1 can simulate
>>>>> DD/HHH.
>>>> HHH does simulate itself correctly yet must create a separate process
>>>> context for each recursive emulation.
>>>> Each process context has its own stack and set of virtual registers.
>>
>>> No, HHH simulates only one program. 
>>
>> HHH correctly emulates DD
> 
> 
> A lie, as you have admitted otherwise on the record:
> 

AS I HAVE SAID HUNDREDS OF TIMES AND YOU DISHONESTLY IGNORE
Correct emulation is defined as DD is emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the x86 language.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer