Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD) Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 19:23:28 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <9cff155c672cbf1bc7b3852e47eaf5a11d051b23@i2pn2.org> References: <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 23:27:40 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4005015"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US On 5/10/25 4:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/10/2025 3:45 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott wrote: >>> On 5/10/2025 3:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> >>>>>> olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> >>>>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>>>>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer science >>>>>>>> would spend years working on so few lines of code. >> >> >>>>>>> I created a whole x86utm operating system. >>>>>>> It correctly determines that the halting problem's otherwise >>>>>>> "impossible" input is actually non halting. >> >>>>>> You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this with Alan >>>>>> Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He published this in >>>>>> 1936 when he was just 24 years old. >> >>>>> Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a >>>>> mistake: the >>>>> category (type) error that I have described previously in this forum. >> >>>> What arrogant self-important ignorance!  Turing indeed solved the >>>> Entscheidungsproblem.  His procedure has been verified by hundreds of >>>> thousands of mathematicians over the last century, and none of them >>>> have >>>> found flaws in it. >> >>>> It is overwhelmingly likely that your lack of mathematical training has >>>> led you to delude yourself about finding an error.  The same applies to >>>> Peter Olcott. >> >>>>> /Flibble >> >> >>> Once we understand .... >> >> [ Irrelevant stuff deleted ] >> >> That's the whole point.  You _don't_ understand > > I DO UNDERSTAND and your carefully memorized dogma > has no actual understanding to it. No one has been > able to point out an actual mistake in the essence > of my reasoning for a long time. Sure we have, you just don't understand actual logic. > > _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] And thos 18 bytes don't contain the code for HHH, and thus NOTHING can correctly emulate this input, as it doesn't represent a PROGRAM. > > THESE WORDS ARE A TRUSISM > When HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input DDD > to the behavior that this input specifies when DDD is > emulated by HHH according to the rules of the x86 > language ... No. it is a LIE as it is IMPOSSIBE for ANY emulator to see the behavior of this input per the x86 language, as the required information is not in it. > > Everyone either changes the subject or changes my > words in their rebuttal. Nope, you are just too stupid to understand the replies. > > The key rebuttal is essentially: > "that is not the way that I memorized it". > Nope, that is not the way it has been DEFINED. The problem is that you think you get to ignore the definitoins, but you don't. which is what just makes you a liar.