Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 18:59:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <42d875b9727dae90799e064ac33b9e1be866f2b5@i2pn2.org>
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$1@dont-email.me> <vvatf3$o4v0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvaut0$vtiu$4@dont-email.me> <vvav6o$o4v0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvb329$15u5b$1@dont-email.me> <vvb37g$1451r$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvb43f$15u5b$4@dont-email.me> <vvb4ok$o4v0$9@dont-email.me>
 <vvb52g$15u5b$6@dont-email.me> <vvb5ca$o4v0$10@dont-email.me>
 <vvb5vp$15u5b$7@dont-email.me> <vvb675$o4v0$11@dont-email.me>
 <vvb9d7$1av94$3@dont-email.me> <vvbani$1b6l1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbb6s$1av94$4@dont-email.me> <vvbcb3$1b6l1$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbe0j$1av94$8@dont-email.me> <vvbecc$1b6l1$6@dont-email.me>
 <vvbhk0$1ijna$1@dont-email.me> <vvc7t9$29pp8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvc86c$2a4cs$1@dont-email.me> <vvcufi$2sk4a$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvdlff$3i09b$2@dont-email.me> <vvdmqe$3huo6$4@dont-email.me>
 <vvdneq$3k2gc$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 23:01:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3438597"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vvdneq$3k2gc$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4665
Lines: 80

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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.