Sujet : Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof
De : noreply (at) *nospam* example.org (joes)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 25. Jul 2025, 20:10:21
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <1060kqt$10108$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a git.gnome.org/pan2)
Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 11:32:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/25/2025 10:10 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/25/2025 2:53 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:41:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 7/24/2025 4:24 PM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:32:45 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Let's see: the call to HHH is #4, [waves hands], then another 4
inside the next level of simulation, and after another 4 the first
simulated HHH (the one called by the input, not the outermost
simulator. We are now 3 levels in) decides that enough is enough
and aborts,
>
Thus immediate killing its simulated DDD and everything else that
HHH was simulating thus no simulated DDD or simulated HHH can
possibly ever return no matter how many or how few X86 instructions
that the executed HHH correctly emulates.
This is the part that you fail to understand or understand that I am
correct and disagree anyway.
>
You failed to understand I was talking about the first simulated HHH
aborting, not the outermost simulator.
>
*I am trying to get you to understand that is impossible*
The only HHH that can possibly abort is the outermost directly
executed one.
True if the input changes along with the simulator, but not if we
The input is always the exact same sequence of machine language bytes.
Oh, really now? I thought it referred to its simulator HHH by name.
simulate the fixed input (that aborts after 4+4=8 instructions of DDD,
when we encounter the second nested call to HHH) without prematurely
aborting.
There exists no finite or infinite number of correctly emulated x86
instructions such that the emulated DDD ever reaches its emulated "ret"
instruction final halt state because the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
recursive emulation.
Not if DDD is simulated by something other than HHH, such as an UTM.
I get that if you change what "HHH" refers to in order do extend the
simulation you necessarily simulate a different input. You don't.
See above.
-- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
…