Re: This first time anyone In the entire history of the halting problem derived a correct return value for HHH(DD)

On 12/10/24 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/10/2024 1:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-12-09 13:46:16 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 12/9/2024 4:54 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-12-08 19:34:19 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 12/8/2024 4:55 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-12-05 04:20:50 +0000, olcott said:
>

There is an 80% chance that I will be alive in one month.
There may be an extended pause in my comments.
I will try to bring a computer to the out of town hospital.
>
On 12/4/2024 8:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:

>

You said:
  >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That is WRONG !!!
HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.

We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>

>
Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you
try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>
 >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>
That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>

>
But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.

>
I did not mention anything about answers my entire
scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
emulating DDD.
>
Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
seems dishonest to me.
>

>
But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer",

>
DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>
>

>
Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it isn't given it,

>
Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this?
I could die on the operating table in two weeks!
>

>
What's the lie?
>
Can you point to what I say that is wrong, and a reliable reference that show it?
>
All you have is your own lies to call it a lie.
>
And yes, you might die in two weeks, and the only thing you will have left behind is all your lies.

>
Yes you fucking jackass this conclusively proves that
HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
>

>
Nope.
>
It proves that your HHH fails to meet its requirement to be pure function

>
It proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD.
>
Once we get through this point then we know that DDD
does not halt:
>
DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
*This tells us that DDD emulated by HHH DOES NOT HALT*
>
We do not begin to examine whether or not HHH found this
answer as a pure function until after we agree with the
prior point.
>
*In all of the history of the halting problem there*
*have never been a correct return value for this*
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
>
int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
>
int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

>
This is not a useful main. It is sufficient to determine whether HHH
returns but not to determine whther it returns the correct value.
>

When we understand that the first point is correct
then we know that HHH returning 0 is correct.
*This has much has never ever been done before*

>
This is one of the well known methods to prove that the value HHH returns
is incorrect. If HHH returns 0 then DD returns 0 but the meaning of 0 in
this context is that DD does not halt. THerefore the value returned by
HHH is incorrect.

>

Every expert in the C programming language has agreed that DD
simulated by HHH cannot possibly return.

>
No, they not. They have agreed that DD returns only if HHH returns
0 and that HHH is not able to simulated DD to that point.
>

Everyone disagreeing with this has dishonestly used to strawman
deception to refer to different behavior than DD simulated by HHH.

>
The topic as specified on the subject line is the behaviour of DD and
what HHH should report. Simulation is not mentioned there.

>
I can't put more than a sentence on the subject line.

>
What you did put there specifies that the halting problem is on topic
and therefore is not "strawman".
>

 In the specific aspect of the "do the opposite of whatever HHH says"
halting problem input DD, HHH does correctly reject DD as non-halting
on the basis that DD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its
own final state.

Nope, sincr the program DD will halt and the program HHH says it will not.
Since you say it is answering the halting quesiton, that is, and only is, about the behavior of the *PROGRAM* described by the input, which *MUST* include all the code that it uses, and thus your short string of bytes you claim is the "input" is just a *LIE*. Since you admit that HHH looks at the "Global memory space", you have admitted that all of that IS THE INPUT, and thus you can't change HHH without creating a DIFFERENT problem, and thus we show that there are alternate deciders "HHH" (at different addresses as required to not change the input) that can emulate/simulate this input to a final state (like HHH1) and thus you claim is false.

Whether or not HHH did this the proper way is a different
subject. We only examining the single aspect of the correctness
of the return value. We are not examining any other aspect.
This one single aspect seems to be unprecedented progress.

But the wrong answer is just wrong, and you prove you are nothing but =an ignorant pathetic pathological lying idiot to think that it is ok to try to change the fundamental rules of the system.
That is what you are leaving as your legacy, that Peter Olcott doesn't undetstand that the rules of the system ARE the rules of the system, and can't be changed.
That is a fundamental part of "Truth" for which it seems is totally foreign to you, showing your total lack of undetstanding on how logic and truth works.
Sorry, but those are the FACTS, and you inability to understand that just proves that they ARE the facts about you. You are just showing that you are too stupid to see your stupidity, which is the worse kind of stupidity.
Your failure to address the problems just show that you understand you have no arguement against them, and thus are conceeding them to be real problems. When you die, you won't be able to divert from them any more, but they will be stuck to your reputation forever (until you become just a forgotten splot in life).