Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior of their caller

On 7/9/25 9:35 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/9/2025 4:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 08.jul.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott:

On 7/8/2025 2:01 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 08/07/2025 17:07, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 08 Jul 2025 10:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/8/2025 6:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/7/25 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/7/2025 2:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 07.jul.2025 om 05:12 schreef olcott:

On 7/6/2025 9:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/6/25 4:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/6/2025 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>

And there is no way for HHH to correctly simulate its input
and return an answer
>

You insistence that a non-terminating input be simulated until
non-existent completion is especially nuts because you have
been told about this dozens of times.
What the F is wrong with you?
>

It seems you don't understand those words.
I don't say that the decider needs to simulate the input to
completion, but that it needs to be able to actually PROVE that
if this exact input WAS given to a correct simultor (which
won't be itself, since it isn't doing the complete simulation)
will run for an unbounded number of steps.
>

No decider is ever allowed to report on anything besides the
actual behavior that its input actually specifies.

Ah, but your HHH does report on a *hypothetical* input that wouldn't
call the aborting simulator HHH, but instead a *different* (possibly
similar) simulator that would *not* abort.
>

And HHH does not do that. The input specifies a halting program,
because it includes the abort code. But HHH gives up before it
reaches that part of the specification and the final halt state.

>
I have corrected you on this too many times.
You have sufficiently proven that you are dishonest or
incompetent.
*This code proves that you are wrong*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c That you
are too F-ing stupid to see this is less than no rebuttal at all.
>

No, that code proves that HHH, as defined, always aborts its
simulation of DDD and returns 0,

That is counter-factual and you would know this if you had good C++
skills.
>

How is it "Counter-Factual"?
It is YOU that is just counter-factual.
>

"No, that code proves that HHH, as defined,
   always aborts its simulation of DDD"
That is a false statement. If you understood the code you would know
your error.
>

Really, so how does that code NOT aboft its simulation of DDD?

>
You have a reading comprehension problem.
When critique words you are strictly not allowed to change even a single
word without being dishonest.
"No, that code proves that HHH as defined
     always aborts its simulation of DDD"
If you can't figure how how that is false we have conclusively proved
your lack of sufficient technical competence.

Wow. Can't you just answer the question? Also, "we" and "proved"? Not
being understood isn't very convincing. So how does HHH not abort?

>
This is one of PO's practiced tactics - he makes a claim, and regardless of how patently false that claim appears, he refuses to logically defend the claim beyond saying "the claim is true, and if you understood xxx you would realise it is true".
>

>
All of my claims are easily verified facts to those
with the capacity to verify them.

>
Again changing the meaning of the words. Here 'capacity' seems to mean the ability to ignore the facts.

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002192] 55             push ebp
[00002193] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000     push 00002192  // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff     call 000015d2  // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404         add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d             pop ebp
[000021a3] c3             ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>

This is not the full program.

 It need not be a full program.
All that needs to be known is that
DDD is emulated by HHH using an x86 emulator.
 

It refers in the call instruction to address 000015d2, which is not shown here.

 *It is shown here*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
Because we have multiple levels of emulation the
instructions of each level are mixed together as
they actually occur in the execution trace.
 None of these are relevant.
*The only thing that is relevant is this portion*

Except the below isn't actually a correct simulation, as that isn't what a call HHH does.
I guess you are just proving you don't understand what you are talking about and just make you you lies.

   machine   stack     stack     machine    assembly
  address   address   data      code       language
  ========  ========  ========  =========  =============
[00002192][00103820][00000000] 55         push ebp      ; Begin main()
[00002193][00103820][00000000] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002195][0010381c][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000219a][00103818][0000219f] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
 New slave_stack at:1038c4
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:1138cc
[00002172][001138bc][001138c0] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][001138bc][001138c0] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][001138b8][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][001138b4][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
New slave_stack at:14e2ec
[00002172][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173][0015e2e4][0015e2e8] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175][0015e2e0][00002172] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a][0015e2dc][0000217f] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
 

 From other sources, such as Halt7.c, we know that this is the code for a HHH that aborts and returns a value 0.

 It is impossible for any HHH to return any value
to any simulated DDD. The code completely proves this.
 

When we use that fact, we see that a correct simulation would

 The stupid mistake that everyone here makes is thinking
that their expectation of what the code should do overrides
the behavior that this code actually specifies.

But what you say the code does, isn't what it actually does, because you just lie about everything

 DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
x86 language specifies that this DDD cannot possibly
reach its final halt state.

But your above shows that your HHH doesnt correctly emulate the input, and that you are just a stupid liar.
It seems you think computers are just naturally broken and won't do what they are programmed to do.

 

continue at 0000219f, using this value and reaching the final halt state.
Of course, HHH fails to do this correct simulation, as you have shown many times.