Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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: Wed, 7 May 2025 23:56:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e0c72b5732f72441e9bf1e2e2f3db2a0c27ceca4@i2pn2.org>
References: <GE4SP.47558$VBab.42930@fx08.ams4> <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>
 <vvbjjg$1kegb$1@dont-email.me> <vvbk93$1l4cf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbkft$1kegb$4@dont-email.me> <vvbl71$1ljaj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvbma3$1kegb$5@dont-email.me> <vvbmp0$1ljaj$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvbqd5$1tr5o$1@dont-email.me> <vvbrha$1us1f$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5dffdb99fdbfe0cd74914de4d51abe0aa439e7d@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdj0r$3cbpq$9@dont-email.me> <vvf73c$tv4n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvfvbv$130t3$8@dont-email.me>
 <473b8403ad7286d2ebc8c002d1bd0068412bdc60@i2pn2.org>
 <vvh6d1$1gq2p$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 May 2025 04:00:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3605589"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vvh6d1$1gq2p$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2896
Lines: 31

On 5/7/25 10:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 9:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/25 11:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 3:54 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-05-06 18:05:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> That everyone here thinks that HHH can simply ignore
>>>>> the rules of the x86 language and jump over the "call"
>>>>> instruction to the "ret" instruction seems quite stupid
>>>>> to me.
>>>>
>>>> The halting problem does not prohibit such skip so in that sense
>>>> it is OK.
>>>>
>>>> However, in order to correctly determine whether DD halts
>>>> it may need to know whether the called HHH returns and what it
>>>> returns if it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The call from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
>>
>> Only because HHH can't be a correct emulator.
>>
> 
> Liar
> 

It isn't, as you have stipulated what HHH is.

So all you are doing is adding to your lies.

Which LIE are you going to take back to just make your argument stupid?