Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 21:39:07 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <8d6c1b8d100445e23c8e61f3366eeac1500dfc94@i2pn2.org> References: <101nq32$99vd$1@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> <104lbkv$13ioh$4@dont-email.me> <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:00:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4120960"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <104lr65$7l4q$9@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 7/9/25 9:35 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/9/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 08.jul.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott: >>> 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. >> >> Again changing the meaning of the words. Here 'capacity' seems to mean >> the ability to ignore the facts. >>> >>> 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] >>> >> This is not the full program. > > It need not be a full program. > All that needs to be known is that > DDD is emulated by HHH using an x86 emulator. > >> It refers in the call instruction to address 000015d2, which is not >> shown here. > > *It is shown here* > https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf > Because we have multiple levels of emulation the > instructions of each level are mixed together as > they actually occur in the execution trace. > > None of these are relevant. > *The only thing that is relevant is this portion* Except the below isn't actually a correct simulation, as that isn't what a call HHH does. I guess you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about and just make you you lies. > >  machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly >  address   address   data      code       language >  ========  ========  ========  =========  ============= > [00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main() > [00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping > [00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > > New slave_stack at:1038c4 > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc > [00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping > [00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping > [00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > New slave_stack at:14e2ec > [00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping > [00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping > [00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD) > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========