Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 15:16:38 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 206 Message-ID: <102236l$37hjl$6@dont-email.me> References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <1021jls$32035$1@dont-email.me> <1021jr1$3327l$7@dont-email.me> <1021jvn$32035$2@dont-email.me> <1021k32$3327l$9@dont-email.me> <1021k8c$32035$3@dont-email.me> <1021kgp$34oo9$1@dont-email.me> <1021klt$34pgj$1@dont-email.me> <1021kst$34oo9$2@dont-email.me> <1021l77$34pgj$2@dont-email.me> <1021m3r$34oo9$3@dont-email.me> <1021oh9$35mm5$1@dont-email.me> <1021ona$35nsp$1@dont-email.me> <1021ot3$35mm5$2@dont-email.me> <1021pcu$35nsp$2@dont-email.me> <1021prr$35mm5$3@dont-email.me> <1021rpd$36co9$1@dont-email.me> <102208q$37hjl$1@dont-email.me> <10220qt$37mll$1@dont-email.me> <102218h$37hjl$2@dont-email.me> <10221jl$37t34$1@dont-email.me> <10221o1$37hjl$3@dont-email.me> <102227a$37t34$2@dont-email.me> <10222b2$37hjl$4@dont-email.me> <10222mp$37t34$4@dont-email.me> <10222ov$37hjl$5@dont-email.me> <10222vb$37t34$7@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 21:16:38 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8019fb51a88e18578f1c4ac331976de2"; logging-data="3393141"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Sren1m3fxir9Th1wXJ8uC" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+v1GhiscFeFJGTvmRUJHJVSDrUs= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <10222vb$37t34$7@dont-email.me> On 6/7/2025 3:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/7/2025 2:09 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 6/7/2025 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/7/2025 2:01 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 6/7/2025 2:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/7/2025 1:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/2025 2:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 1:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 1:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 1:10 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:37 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 12:29 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:20 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 12:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:14 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:17 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:08 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 11:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:01 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:56 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> divergence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main() >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH1(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulating DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] push ebp               [00002183] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mov ebp,esp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> push 00002183 ; DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call 000015c3 ; HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once, these match* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002183. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates is at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002190. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1 emulates is at the machine address of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 000015c3, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you're not operating on algorithms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are not actually paying any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm very much paying to attention to the fact that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you stated that the code of the function H is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the input and that you're therefore not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working on the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You say that I said things that I never said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said that the instruction at address 000015c3 is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not part of the input, which means the input to HHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not an algorithm, and therefore has nothing to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really should be honest about not working on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never said that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you're saying that the input to HHH is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> description/ specification of algorithm DDD consisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the fixed code of the function DDD, the fixed code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the function HHH, and the fixed code of everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH calls down to the OS level, and that HHH must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore report on the behavior of the algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described/ specified by its input? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed DDD() would never stop running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed HHH(DDD) would never stop running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless HHH(DDD) aborts the simulation of its input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus conclusively proving that the input to HHH(DDD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not an algorithm, as you have admitted above, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People might actually take you seriously if you stopped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lying about that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevent, as you're not working on the halting problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by your own admission: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have correctly refuted the conventional proofs of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No you haven't, as you're not actually working on the >>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem as you've admitted: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This *is* the architecture of the algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>>>      If simulating halt decider H >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And since you don't have a halt decider, as halt deciders work >>>>>>>>>> with algorithms which your HHH doesn't, you're not working on >>>>>>>>>> the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you would just be honest about that you might actually be >>>>>>>>>> taken seriously. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you would quit being dishonest we could get to closure. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========