Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 20:29:16 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 175 Message-ID: <1061b1c$189om$1@dont-email.me> References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me> <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <105n1qi$bbj9$2@dont-email.me> <5MKfQ.127468$uM3d.59517@fx39.iad> <105obtn$hate$7@dont-email.me> <105pn1c$r41b$4@dont-email.me> <105q67b$8o3u$2@dont-email.me> <105qngv$v75u$6@dont-email.me> <106055n$138e1$3@dont-email.me> <1060f0m$155c3$1@dont-email.me> <9JPgQ.150643$Tc12.40039@fx17.iad> <1060n64$168i0$1@dont-email.me> <4rRgQ.31617$PvV.21729@fx45.iad> <1060ppa$168i0$4@dont-email.me> <1060u8t$172k3$2@dont-email.me> <10614pa$17qo4$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 01:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f6f0403f57a8205f4bde00807733f3a"; logging-data="1320726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18f5yYYRMwMwmM4w1sfe2vu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+eRWJ9o4RX9N9pQ6v0iaSON2JFU= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250725-6, 7/25/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: On 7/25/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/25/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/25/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/25/25 5:51 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/25/2025 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 7/25/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> morally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> corrupt to admit it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at >>>>>>>>>>>>> this are you Damon? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask >>>>>>>>>>> your lies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I point out your stupidity to help people understand where >>>>>>>>>>> you are coming from so they don't try to find the logic in >>>>>>>>>>> your illogical statements. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning. >>>>>>>>>> When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on >>>>>>>>> him. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while >>>>>>>> I see that this is mutually respected and there is >>>>>>>> no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest >>>>>>> that doesn't count. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but you call anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I didn't call them a liar just because they disagreed. >>>> I called them a liar when they changed the words that >>>> I said and then used these changed words as the basis >>>> of their rebuttal. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by >>>>>> HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty. >>>>> >>>>> No, >>>> >>>> Yes you are a liar otherwise. >>>> >>>>> insisting that the criteria *IS* DDD simulated by HHH is the >>>>> dishonest claim, since it is a violation of the definition of halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you want to insist on lying I will not stop calling you a liar. >>>> >>>>> The only simulation that can be used as a replacement for the >>>>> direct execution is the CORRECT (which means complete with no >>>>> aborting) >>>> >>>> That you expect a correct simulation of a non-terminating >>>> input to be infinite is fucking nuts. When one instruction >>>> of a non-terminating input is correctly emulated then it >>>> is dishonest to conclude that zero instructions were emulated >>>> correctly. >>>> >>>>> SIMULATION of the exact input, which must include in it ALL the >>>>> code used. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The we must also agree that an actual lie only >>>>>> includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement. >>>>> >>>>> Except it doesn't, as, as shown, it also includes statements that >>>>> are just blantently incorrect. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Since that is not the way that most people take >>>> the meaning of the word your use of this term >>>> in that way is libelous. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated >>>>>>>> by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD >>>>>>>> have been emulated by HHH according to the rules >>>>>>>> of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating >>>>>>>> itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the >>>>>>> statement is just a LIE. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes >>>>>> that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86 >>>>>> language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION* >>>>> >>>>> No, you miss the requirement that to be correct, it must continue >>>>> to the final state, as that is also part of the x86 language. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is fucking nuts. Non-terminating inputs cannot >>>> reach any final state. >>>> >>>>> Partial simulations are NOT "correct" when talking about non-halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its >>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D >>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then >>>> >>>> until H correctly determines >>>> until H correctly determines >>> >>> [[ Two year old style rant trimed ]] >>> >>> But H can't "Correctly Determine" that, since it isn't true. >>> >>> The CORRECT SIMULATION of D WILL HALT, BECAUSE you H ultimate has >>> been assumed to detect some pattern and stopped. >>> >> >> _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] >> >> Until you provide the execution trace of DDD emulated >> by HHH (according to the rules of the x86 language) >> such that this emulated DDD reaches its own emulated >> "ret" instruction final halt state >> *you will be considered a fucking liar* ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========