Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs ---

On 6/3/2024 5:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-02 13:56:27 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/2/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-06-01 15:09:02 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

*two dozen people were simply wrong*

>
Why are people who are wrong so important that they deserve
a subject line? I would think that people who are right are
more interesting.
>

>
This is the key mistake of the definition of the halting problem itself.
Linz makes this same mistake. I already covered this extensively in
another reply.

>
The word "this" above does not denote anything so the first sentence
does not mean anything. The word "same" in the second sentence refers
to "this" in the first sentnece and therefore does not denote, either,
so the second sentence does not say anything either. So the third
sentence says that you covevered nothing.
>

That these two dozen different people are wrong about this shows that
the only basis for any rebuttal of my proof for the last three years IS
WRONG.

>
That you claim that these two dozen people are wrong does not show
anything. It probably wouldn't even if you could show that they
really were wrong.
>

>
The only one that I am aware that is not wrong about the behavior
that a simulating halt decider must report on is myself.

>
A single exception to a general trend can be an observation error.
 From a single case it is not safe to infer anything other than
more more observations are needed.
>

Only software engineers will understand that DD correctly simulated
by HH had different behavior than DD(DD). Comp Sci people allow Comp Sci
dogma to overrule verified facts.

>
Software engineers know that the given specifications override their
opinions.
>
They also know that it is not the program's responsibility to meet
the specifactions but software (and other) engineers'.
>

 Repeat until correct rebuttal.
DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT
DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT
DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT

 typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
 _DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx        ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342   ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]