Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 11:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 6:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:55:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 7:12 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 12:55 AM, olcott wrote:

>

*EVERYONE IGNORES THIS*
It is very simple the mapping from inputs to outputs must have a well
defined sequence of steps.
>

FALSE!!!
There is no requirement that mappings have steps to compute them.
>

The requirement is that OUTPUTS must correspond to INPUTS. This requires
that outputs must be derived from INPUTS.
>
When DD is correctly emulated by HHH it is only allowed to apply the
specific sequence specified by the x86 language to derive the behavior
specified by this input.

Yes, and it is not allowed to just assume HHH doesn't halt.
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 HHH (as every competent C programmer can see)
sees that DD correctly simulated by HHH

Is a lie, as you yourself have admitted for the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH