Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 14:12:43 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 197 Message-ID: <10222vb$37t34$7@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 21:12:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8b5701e9588c79f836e89c5073f428a2"; logging-data="3404900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1955TnlJbF/RlOeBGrKRW++" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:A6L3MlrFZPfSxtJJqAFmOnswuF8= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <10222ov$37hjl$5@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250607-4, 6/7/2025), Outbound message 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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 ==========