Path: ...!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: Everyone on this forum besides Keith has been a damned liar about this point Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 19:47:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 89 Message-ID: <1027vah$r7bj$5@dont-email.me> References: <1025i6j$afk6$1@dont-email.me> <1025j6l$4nm5$1@dont-email.me> <1025jn5$aqju$1@dont-email.me> <1025kkk$4nm5$2@dont-email.me> <1025l2e$aqju$3@dont-email.me> <1025l7l$4nm5$3@dont-email.me> <1025n51$b964$2@dont-email.me> <1026d6e$g0hl$2@dont-email.me> <1026rvc$j3rp$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 02:47:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="668213ca1180824494e01b33326cf4e0"; logging-data="892275"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hTGrHvRuYd+lx9Vn/IuqE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:kTvGIM7ijtORLvPtY/yFpYKZ4g0= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250609-4, 6/9/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4462 On 6/9/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/9/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/9/2025 5:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 09.jun.2025 om 06:15 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/8/2025 10:42 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:08 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/8/2025 10:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The *input* to simulating termination analyzer HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it's not, as halt deciders / termination analyzers work with >>>>>>>>> algorithms, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is stupidly counter-factual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That you think that shows that >>>>>> >>>>>> My understanding is deeper than yours. >>>>>> No decider ever takes any algorithm as its input. >>>>> >>>>> But they take a description/specification of an algorithm, >>>> >>>> There you go. >>>> >>>>> which is what is meant in this context. >>>> >>>> It turns out that this detail makes a big difference. >>>> >>>>> And because your HHH does not work with the description/ >>>>> specification of an algorithm, by your own admission, you're not >>>>> working on the halting problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> HHH(DDD) takes a finite string of x86 instructions >>>> that specify that HHH simulates itself simulating DDD. >>> >>> And HHH fails to see the specification of the x86 instructions. It >>> aborts before it can see how the program ends. >>> >> >> This is merely a lack of sufficient technical competence >> on your part. It is a verified fact that unless the outer >> HHH aborts its simulation of DDD that DDD simulated by HHH >> the directly executed DDD() and the directly executed HHH() >> would never stop running. That you cannot directly see this >> is merely your own lack of sufficient technical competence. > > And it is a verified fact that you just ignore that if HHH does in fact > abort its simulation of DDD and return 0, then the behavior of the > input, PER THE ACTUAL DEFINITIONS, is to Halt, and thus HHH is just > incorrect. > void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } How the f-ck does DDD correctly simulated by HHH reach its own "return" statement final halt state? _DDD() [00002192] 55 push ebp [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000021a2] 5d pop ebp [000021a3] c3 ret How the f-ck does DDD correctly emulated by HHH reach its own "ret" instruction final halt state? That you have dodged this question hundreds of times proves that you are a liar. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer