Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:40:04 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 117 Message-ID: <105q755$8slg$3@dont-email.me> References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me> <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <105ljhk$9si$1@news.muc.de> <105lkj4$3v8t8$13@dont-email.me> <105lnn2$2srt$1@news.muc.de> <105lpsd$1mvr$1@dont-email.me> <105m9me$2phf$1@news.muc.de> <105mcl3$48m9$1@dont-email.me> <105ms6j$333bs$1@dont-email.me> <105n1ie$bbj9$1@dont-email.me> <4MKfQ.127467$uM3d.71356@fx39.iad> <105obar$hate$6@dont-email.me> <105pk3r$qppi$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 08:40:09 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="096fd06c2d10aa311d1c39583c41a806"; logging-data="291504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uPRLFlwnB9Iqf1cGT1xOT" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ha1nOnrE9Wl4kR0KFujCZWQUlwA= In-Reply-To: <105pk3r$qppi$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:15 schreef olcott: > On 7/22/2025 9:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/22/25 11:39 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/22/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/21/25 11:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/21/2025 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 7/21/25 5:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 3:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 9:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it should. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people >>>>>>>>>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars >>>>>>>>>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What you call "verified facts" are generally nothing of the >>>>>>>>>>>> kind. They >>>>>>>>>>>> are merely things, often false, you would like to be true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *One key example of a denied verified fact is when Joes said* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/18/2025 3:49 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> very obvious that HHH cannot simulate >>>>>>>>>>>> DDD past the call to HHH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Joes is quite right, here, as has been said to you many times >>>>>>>>>> over by >>>>>>>>>> several people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) does emulate itself emulating DDD >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You will have a get out clause from the vagueness of your >>>>>>>>>> language, which >>>>>>>>>> could be construed to mean practically anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)(); >>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not at all. HHH does emulate the x86 machine code >>>>>>>>> of DDD pointed to by P. That is does this according >>>>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language conclusively >>>>>>>>> proves that this emulation is correct. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's nauseatingly overstretching things into another lie. >>>>>>>> Whatever HHH >>>>>>>> might do is far short of sufficient "conclusively to prove" that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> emulation is correct.  To prove that is likely impossible in >>>>>>>> principle, >>>>>>>> that's even assuming you could define "correct" coherently. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [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 >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] >>>>>> >>>>>> Which isn't a program, you need to include the code for HHH. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Yet again your attention deficit disorder* >>>>> I have told you countless times that all of >>>>> the machine code for every function is in >>>>> the same global memory space of halt7.obj. >>>> >>>> Doesn't matter what "is in the memory space", what matters is what >>>> is considedred part of the program, and thus part of the input. >>>> >>> >>> Neither HHH nor DDD would ever stop running unless >>> HHH aborts its emulation of DDD. >> >> But your HHH DOES stop running. >> > > Yet you know that you changed the question to a different question. > As usual counter-factual claims without evidence.