Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: HHH(DDD) correctly determines the halt status of its input according
 to this specification
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 14:17:56 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <1002q95$2le74$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1001fms$29d3f$1@dont-email.me> <1002l5k$2ke1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 21:17:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b4c815c0318038d25de37dcdc1ad225";
	logging-data="2799844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1//sF28yoDVtD9OjbHhXpi4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mm5T4Fi5nzWBRTu/Giqx3ZomeXo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1002pj0$2ldvf$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250514-4, 5/14/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 14/05/2025 18:50, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 14/05/2025 08:11, vallor wrote:
>>> Spent a couple of hours reading back the last few days of posts.  Huboy,
>>> what a train wreck.  (But like a train wreck, it's hard to look
>>> away, which might explain how this has been going on for 20(?) years.)
>>>
>>> I want to thank both Richard's, wij, dbush, Mike, Keith, Fred,
>>> Mikko, and anybody else I've forgotten for trying to explain to
>>> Mr. Olcott and Mr. Flibble how you all see their claims.  I wanted to
>>> point out three things:
>>>
>>> a) Mr. Olcott claims his HHH simulator detects an non-terminating
>>> input and halts.  But others (I forget who) report that -- due
>>> to a bug -- D would actually terminate on its own.  His HHH
>>> simulator therefore gives the wrong answer.
>>
>> Not really due to a bug.  D actually /does/ terminate on its own, and 
>> that's a consequence of PO's intended design.  (Yes, there are bugs, 
>> but D's coding is what PO intended.)
>>
> Hmm, I thought some more about this.  What's considered a bug (rather 
> than e.g. a design error) is entirely dependent on the program's 
> specification.  

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 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

I did not notice how all of the rebuttals of this have
always committed the straw-man error until yesterday.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

A correct simulation has always meant that according
to the rules of the x86 language HHH must emulate
itself emulating DDD.

A correct simulation has NEVER meant that HHH
can interpret "call 000015d2" to mean "jmp 00002183".

Yet all of my reviewers say that HHH must do
something like this so that the behavior of DDD
correctly emulated by HHH matches the directly
executed DDD().


-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer