Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 4:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 7:14 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 1:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 12:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 06/05/2025 00:29, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

>
It is the problem incorrect specification that creates
the contradiction.

>
Not at all. The contradiction arises from the fact that it is not possible to construct a universal decider.
>

Everyone here insists that functions computed
by models of computation can ignore inputs and
base their output on something else.

>
I don't think anyone's saying that.
>
Maybe you don't read so well.
>

>
What are the exact steps for DD to be emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language?
*Only an execution trace will do*

>
The exact same steps for DD to be emulated by UTM.
>

>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
Machine address by machine address specifics
that you know that you cannot provide because
you know that you are wrong.
>

>
HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts,

>
When you trace through the actual steps you
will see that this is counter-factual.
>

>
Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the emulation performed by UTM?
>

>
HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
It does not abort.

>
Last chance:
>
What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the emulation performed by HHH1?

 Go back and read the part you ignored moron.

Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.

Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.

Therefore, as per the above requirements:
LET THE RECORD SHOW
That Peter Olcott
Has *officially* admitted
That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously on record as admitting.