Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 20:30:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 131 Message-ID: <104kgnf$3rvl5$1@dont-email.me> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me> <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org> <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org> <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me> <104e46s$28pqb$2@dont-email.me> <960c2417e6f691b2b12703506c207990df5b39ab@i2pn2.org> <104el09$2dpog$1@dont-email.me> <1ca786773f9ff02718c66e082bbc4182b36732ab@i2pn2.org> <104fduv$2n8gq$2@dont-email.me> <104ftep$rafj$1@dont-email.me> <104h475$324da$1@dont-email.me> <104hmkm$35gkb$2@dont-email.me> <104i0ar$36mma$1@dont-email.me> <775a1f21c8d308989a8ef2a0afaae66c1609912b@i2pn2.org> <104jc8l$3jrpl$9@dont-email.me> <104jpu7$3np76$1@dont-email.me> <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 03:30:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2110c108bc12e4dcc4330d3f9add4534"; logging-data="4062885"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YOlGqtOIfuct3NIyWhKEG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cv3wsTL1alnlBoc0+LoZMnTU8ag= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250708-8, 7/8/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <104jsnj$3o6as$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US On 7/8/2025 2:49 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 08/07/2025 17:07, joes wrote: >>> Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and return an answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> been told about this dozens of times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What the F is wrong with you? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you don't understand those words. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to >>>>>>>>>>>>> completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which >>>>>>>>>>>>> won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation) >>>>>>>>>>>>> will run for an unbounded number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides the >>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that its input actually specifies. >>> Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't >>> call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly >>> similar) simulator that would *not* abort. >>> >>>>>>>>>>> And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program, >>>>>>>>>>> because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it >>>>>>>>>>> reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have corrected you on this too many times. >>>>>>>>>> You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or >>>>>>>>>> incompetent. >>>>>>>>>> *This code proves that you are wrong* >>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you >>>>>>>>>> are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its >>>>>>>>> simulation of DDD and returns 0, >>>>>>>> That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++ >>>>>>>> skills. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> How is it "Counter-Factual"? >>>>>>> It is YOU that is just counter-factual. >>>>>>> >>>>>> "No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, >>>>>>    always aborts its simulation of DDD" >>>>>> That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know >>>>>> your error. >>>>>> >>>>> Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD? >>>> >>>> You have a reading comprehension problem. >>>> When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a >>>> single >>>> word without being dishonest. >>>> "No, that code proves that HHH as defined >>>>      always aborts its simulation of DDD" >>>> If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved >>>> your lack of sufficient technical competence. >>> Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not >>> being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort? >> >> This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and >> regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to >> logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if >> you understood xxx you would realise it is true". >> > > All of my claims are easily verified facts to those > with the capacity to verify them. > > void DDD() > { >   HHH(DDD); >   return; > } > > _DDD() > [00002192] 55             push ebp > [00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp > [00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD > [0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH > [0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04 > [000021a2] 5d             pop ebp > [000021a3] c3             ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] > HHH emulates the first four instructions of DDD that calls HHH(DDD) then this HHH emulates itself emulating DDD that calls HHH(DDD) again. *This is proven here* https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > I am utterly shocked that you can't understand > that DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics > of the x86 language cannot possibly reach past > it own machine address [0000219a]. > > To me that is like an auto mechanic that has no > idea what a spark plug is or an MD that has no > idea what an infection is. > > Several of my reviewers simply "don't believe" > that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD > even after I conclusively prove it by this > full execution trace. > > https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer