Re: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred

On 8/16/24 12:12 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 11:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 11:45 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 10:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 11:05 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 9:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 10:42 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 9:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

>
I must go one step at a time.

>
That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
construed that this instance of DDD never halts.

>
But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider
>

>
Not at all. never has.
HHH must predict what the behavior of an unlimited
simulation would be.
>

>
Right, unlimited emulation of the EXACT input that HHH got, that is the DDD that calls the HHH that is the decider
>

>
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
PREDICT WHAT THE BEHAVIOR WOULD BE
>
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
IF IT WAS AN UNLIMITED EMULATION
>

>
So, I guess you aren't working on the Halting Problem,

>
Halt deciders have always been required to predict what the
behavior of their input would be.
>

>
Right, and the input to the Halt Decider HHH is the DDD that calls the Halt Decider HHH, not the DDD that calls the unlimited emulator HHH.
>

 You can't get away with disagreeing with the semantics
of the x86 language.
 _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]
 

Which isn't a program, so doesn't HAVE a complete behavior per the semantics of the x86 language,
You need to include the code of HHH at 000015d2, and since that code, as you have provided it elsewhere DOES return to its caller when given this input, shows that by the x86 semantics, DDD is a halting program.
Of course, ultimately, you HHH violates the requrements of a decider in that it is not a pure function of its explicit input, but uses memory defined outside of its self to determine its behavior says that even if HHH tried to do a "complete and correct" emulation of its input, that would not be the same behavior as that of its input, as the HHH seen in the emulation gets different hidden inputs to the HHH from the DDD called directly, so your criteria is just broken,
Sorry, but it has been clearly shown that you have just wasted these last years of your life working on things that are just incorrect because you believed your own lies, and didn't code to the right specificaiton.
You are just continuing to demonstrate your total ignorance of the topics you are trying to talk about, and your inability to understand this just shws that you are the worse kind of stupid, the stupid that can't see what it doesn't know, but is certain of things that are wrong because it refuses to look at the actual facts.
Sorry, that is just the facts, facts you likely just can't see because you brainwashed and gaslight yourself.