Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 21:53:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 114 Message-ID: References: <42d875b9727dae90799e064ac33b9e1be866f2b5@i2pn2.org> <2f87c70ff64c8b83fa2456545e3250930158a3b5@i2pn2.org> <6528755608b2bbe4206f2b8e11c78417ba77dde5@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 04:53:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f36da193996cadd52a214445b52881fc"; logging-data="1599577"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18H5kN4m7dVB+dMDqy11QX0" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:4Ms5r/hm6uE1QE9EPvZMo57KWso= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <6528755608b2bbe4206f2b8e11c78417ba77dde5@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6403 On 5/7/2025 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/6/25 10:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/6/2025 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/6/25 3:20 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/6/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 06.mei.2025 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you do not understand it, does not mean that it has not been >>>>>>> provided to you. It has, many times. If you do not know that you >>>>>>> are wrong, you must be very stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Everything besides a machine address by machine >>>>>> address of DD emulated by HHH (according to the >>>>>> rules of the x86 language) where the emulated >>>>>> DD reaches its own "ret" instruction >>>>> >>>>> In other words, if people don't agree with your fantasy that is >>>>> just in error, then "they" must be wrong. >>>>> >>>>> No, it >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *IS A DISHONEST DODGE AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL QUESTION* >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU are a dishoneast dodge from the actual question >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of my reviewers switch to rhetoric when they >>>>>> know that they are wrong and still want to disagree. >>>>>> Disagreement (not truth) is their highest priority. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, that is just you projecting again. >>>> >>>> You keep saying the DD emulated by HHH according >>>> to the rules of the x86 language is wrong. >>> >>> Right, because it stops wnen it should not. >>> >>>> >>>> You keep arguing that HHH is required to break these >>>> rules to conform with the common misconception that HHH >>>> is required to report on the direct execution of DD(). >>> >>> No, it needs to keep to them, which it doesn\'t. >>> >>> Where did I say it must break the rules? >>> >> >> DD correctly simulated by HHH according to the rules >> of the x86 language cannot possibly halt. > > Which is a non-sense statement, as HHH doesn't correctly simulate its > input DD by those rules, as you have demonstarted, > Liar -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer