Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/8/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 10:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/25 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 9:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/7/25 11:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/25 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/6/25 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mei.2025 om 20:47 schreef olcott:

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.
>

>
That you do not understand it, does not mean that it has not been provided to you. It has, many times. If you do not know that you are wrong, you must be very stupid.

>
Everything besides a machine address by machine
address of DD emulated by HHH (according to the
rules of the x86 language) where the emulated
DD reaches its own "ret" instruction

>
In other words, if people don't agree with your fantasy that is just in error, then "they" must be wrong.
>
No, it
>

>
*IS A DISHONEST DODGE AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL QUESTION*

>
No, YOU are a dishoneast dodge from the actual question
>

>
Most of my reviewers switch to rhetoric when they
know that they are wrong and still want to disagree.
Disagreement (not truth) is their highest priority.
>

>
Nope, that is just you projecting again.

>
You keep saying the DD emulated by HHH according
to the rules of the x86 language is wrong.

>
Right, because it stops wnen it should not.
>

>
You keep arguing that HHH is required to break these
rules to conform with the common misconception that HHH
is required to report on the direct execution of DD().

>
No, it needs to keep to them, which it doesn\'t.
>
Where did I say it must break the rules?
>

>
DD correctly simulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language cannot possibly halt.

>
Which is a non-sense statement, as HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input DD by those rules, as you have demonstarted,
>

>
Liar
>

>
*THE* HHH is defined to abort it simulation.
>
Aborted simulations are, by definition, not correct simulation per the x86 language.
>
Thus, you are a liar.
>
Maybe I should take you to court over this slander.

 It would be libel dumb bunny and I have much more on
you than you have on me. The only errors that you
"know" of that I made are your own misconceptions.
 

Depend if posting on USENET is considered a "publication" for that purpose.
And you are wrong about the later.
Since your own words have been shown to be based on equivocatins and lies, "misunderstanding" what you say is a given.
And, Reckless disregard for the actual truth makes the defense of "but that is what I believe" not valid. There is the reasonable person rule, that requires that a reason person must be able to believe what you claim to believe as somethig reasnable.

 

>
After all, I can prove my point, as you HAVE stipulated what the code for HHH is, and

 

can produce the actual definition of the x86 language,

Not allowed to make any counterfeit x86 language.

Straight from Intel. Where do you get yours, that allows programs to just stop?

 

and show how they disagree.
>

 I have never ever gave a rat's ass what anyone thinks of me.
Doofuses are not my judge.

That's good, because I suspect almost everyone that has heard your words understands that you are just a stupid crank.
And, just wait until you do meet the judge.

 

The one issue is showing damages, as your repuation is so bad, I would need to find someone who believed you.

 Beliefs are lies we tell ourselves.
Knowledge is the comprehension of the connections
between ideas.
 

In other words, you admit that your philosophy is that the world is just made of lies.
I pity you that you don't understand that there is actual Truth, and Truth that can be believed.
Seems you ar just living the lie that you have convinced yourself of, and will ultimately pay the price for that.