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: Wed, 7 May 2025 07:45:55 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 163 Message-ID: References: <5b84f927f8052f5392b625cef9642140d439d1c7@i2pn2.org> <1a99b2ee77f8c0d1ff37e5febb47c5be17b2d4fb@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 13:45:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0"; logging-data="1059862"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/z4llVvXMGrPDGtM/SnSYU" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:772+xlNusuDKtfaqNdmjqrX0ExY= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7554 On 5/7/2025 12:50 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/6/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/6/2025 10:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/6/2025 6:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/6/25 1:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/6/2025 6:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/25 10:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 8:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/5/25 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2025 10:17 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>> What constitutes halting problem pathological input: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Input that would cause infinite recursion when using a decider >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> simulating kind. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Such input forms a category error which results in the halting >>>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>>> being ill-formed as currently defined. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I prefer to look at it as a counter-example that refutes >>>>>>>>> all of the halting problem proofs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int DD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD); >>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status) >>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE; >>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which isn't a program until you include the SPECIFIC HHH that it >>>>>>>> refutes, and thus your talk about correctly emulated by HHH is >>>>>>>> just a lie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system includes fully >>>>>>>>> operational HHH and DD. >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When HHH computes the mapping from *its input* to >>>>>>>>> the behavior of DD emulated by HHH this includes >>>>>>>>> HHH emulating itself emulating DD. This matches >>>>>>>>> the infinite recursion behavior pattern. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And *ITS INPUT*, for the HHH that answers 0, is the >>>>>>>> representation of a program >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not at all. This has always been stupidly wrong. >>>>>>> The input is actually a 100% perfectly precise >>>>>>> sequence of steps. With pathological self-reference >>>>>>> some of these steps are inside the termination analyzer. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't be, as the input needs to be about a program, which must, by >>>>>> the definition of a program, include all its algorithm. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, there are steps that also occur in the termination analyzer, >>>>>> but they have been effectively copied into the program the input >>>>>> describes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Note, nothing says that the representation of the program has to >>>>>> be an assembly level description of it. It has to be a complete >>>>>> description, that 100% defines the results the code will generate >>>>>> (and if it will generate) but it doesn't need to be the exact >>>>>> assembly code, >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU even understand that, as you present the code as "C" code, >>>>>> which isn't assembly. >>>>>> >>>>>> What you forget is that the input program INCLUDES as its >>>>>> definiton, all of the code it uses, and thus the call to the >>>>>> decider it is built on includes that code into the decider, and >>>>>> that is a FIXED and DETERMINDED version of the decider, the one >>>>>> that THIS version of the input is designed to make wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> This doesn't change when you hypothosize a different decider >>>>>> looking at THIS input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>      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 >>>>> >>>>> *would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>> Refers to a hypothetical HHH/DD pair of the same HHH that >>>>> DD calls except that this hypothetical HHH never aborts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, but a correct simulation of D does halt, >>> >>> How the Hell is breaking the rules specified >>> by the x86 language possibly correct? >>> >>> I could say that the sum of 5 + 7 is a dirty sock >>> according to the rules of random gibberish. >>> >>> When I go by the rules of arithmetic I am proved >>> wrong. >>> >>> DD emulated by HHH according to the rules >>> of the x86 language >> >> False, as you yourself have admitted on the record: >> > You confused the words that I said with the words that others said. > > DD emulated by HHH according to the rules > of the x86 language And again you lie, as you have admitted it does not on the record: On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote: > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation, >>> >>> Sure they do you freaking moron... >> >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of >> executing the next instruction. >> >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT >> correctly simulate DD. > > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this > newsgroup after the above message: > > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: > > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing > > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT* > > > > You are taking > > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect. > > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any > instruction other than HLT. > > Therefore, as per the above criteria: > > LET THE RECORD SHOW > > That Peter Olcott > > Has *officially* admitted > > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH