Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

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.

It's funny, you're asking for a correct simulation by HHH, but HHH
can't do it, so that's impossible. That doesn't make it right.

Everyone here seems to think that HHH is allowed to ignore the "call"
instruction in DD and jump directly to the "ret" instruction in DD.

We know the call to HHH returns because it is a decider. You seem to
think you can ignore all instructions following the abort.

--
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.