Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 23:06:41 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <473b8403ad7286d2ebc8c002d1bd0068412bdc60@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 08 May 2025 05:06:41 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a565b5a0e22116f8f680253905402a9a"; logging-data="1438805"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19QX7FwBY6eVFuH7C+sdJjA" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:1p3ep6bip0JPJIiRYCB3bW5dqow= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US On 5/7/2025 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 > That would be you: On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote: > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation, >>> >>> Sure they do you freaking moron... >> >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of >> executing the next instruction. >> >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT >> correctly simulate DD. > > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this > newsgroup after the above message: > > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: > > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing > > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT* > > > > You are taking > > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect. > > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any > instruction other than HLT. > > Therefore, as per the above criteria: > > LET THE RECORD SHOW > > That Peter Olcott > > Has *officially* admitted > > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH