Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

On 7/25/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 5:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 4:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 4:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 3:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 1:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 12:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/25/25 10:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2025 8:56 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 22:58:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

No, you have just been too stupid to see your error and to morally
corrupt to admit it.

>
Yet another ad hominem attack, you are not very good at this are you Damon?
>
/Flibble

>
I think that he does this to attempt to mask his ignorance.
>

>
No, it is just the method that you both use to try to mask your lies.
>
>
I point out your stupidity to help people understand where you are coming from so they don't try to find the logic in your illogical statements.

>
Try not using any insults and only rely on correct reasoning.
When you do this your reasoning errors will be laid bare.
>

>
Only if you first promise to also stop calling people liars.
>
Remember, YOU started it, and refused the offer of a cease-fire.
>
You will need to get Fibber to agree to, or I will continue on him.

>
OK I will refrain from calling anyone a liar while
I see that this is mutually respected and there is
no evidence that the reply is in any way dishonest.

>
Since you see anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest that doesn't count.
>

>
Disagreeing doesn't count as dishonesty.

>
Yes, but you call anyone who disagrees with you as being dishonest.
>

>
I didn't call them a liar just because they disagreed.
I called them a liar when they changed the words that
I said and then used these changed words as the basis
of their rebuttal.
>

>

Changing the subject away from DDD simulated by
HHH to anything else counts as dishonesty.

>
No,

>
Yes you are a liar otherwise.
>

insisting that the criteria *IS* DDD simulated by HHH is the dishonest claim, since it is a violation of the definition of halting.
>

>
If you want to insist on lying I will not stop calling you a liar.
>

The only simulation that can be used as a replacement for the direct execution is the CORRECT (which means complete with no aborting)

>
That you expect a correct simulation of a non-terminating
input to be infinite is fucking nuts. When one instruction
of a non-terminating input is correctly emulated then it
is dishonest to conclude that zero instructions were emulated
correctly.
>

SIMULATION of the exact input, which must include in it ALL the code used.
>

>

I won't call you a liar unless you say a lie.
>

>
The we must also agree that an actual lie only
includes an INTENTIONALLY false statement.

>
Except it doesn't, as, as shown, it also includes statements that are just blantently incorrect.
>

>
Since that is not the way that most people take
the meaning of the word your use of this term
in that way is libelous.
>

>

>
For example when I refer to DDD correctly emulated
by HHH I mean that one or more instructions of DDD
have been emulated by HHH according to the rules
of the x86 language. This does include HHH emulating
itself when the emulated DDD calls HHH(DDD).

>
But that ISN'T the definition of a correct simulation, so the statement is just a LIE.
>

>
That HHH emulates the exact sequence of machine code bytes
that it is presented with according to the rules of the x86
language *IS THE DEFINITION OF CORRECT EMULATION*

>
No, you miss the requirement that to be correct, it must continue to the final state, as that is also part of the x86 language.
>

>
That is fucking nuts. Non-terminating inputs cannot
reach any final state.
>

Partial simulations are NOT "correct" when talking about non-halting.
>

>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
     input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
     would never stop running unless aborted then
>
until H correctly determines
until H correctly determines

 [[ Two year old style rant trimed ]]
 But H can't "Correctly Determine" that, since it isn't true.
 The CORRECT SIMULATION of D WILL HALT, BECAUSE you H ultimate has been assumed to detect some pattern and stopped.
 

_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]
Until you provide the execution trace of DDD emulated
by HHH (according to the rules of the x86 language)
such that this emulated DDD reaches its own emulated
"ret" instruction final halt state
*you will be considered a fucking liar*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer