Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/6/25 3:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 06.mei.2025 om 20:47 schreef olcott:

On 5/6/2025 7:14 AM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 1:54 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 12:49 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 06/05/2025 00:29, olcott wrote:
>
<snip>
>

>
It is the problem incorrect specification that creates
the contradiction.

>
Not at all. The contradiction arises from the fact that it is not possible to construct a universal decider.
>

Everyone here insists that functions computed
by models of computation can ignore inputs and
base their output on something else.

>
I don't think anyone's saying that.
>
Maybe you don't read so well.
>

>
What are the exact steps for DD to be emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language?
*Only an execution trace will do*

>
The exact same steps for DD to be emulated by UTM.
>

>
_DD()
[00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
[00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
[0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
[00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
[0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
[0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00002154] 5d         pop ebp
[00002155] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>
Machine address by machine address specifics
that you know that you cannot provide because
you know that you are wrong.
>

>
That you do not understand it, does not mean that it has not been provided to you. It has, many times. If you do not know that you are wrong, you must be very stupid.

 Everything besides a machine address by machine
address of DD emulated by HHH (according to the
rules of the x86 language) where the emulated
DD reaches its own "ret" instruction

In other words, if people don't agree with your fantasy that is just in error, then "they" must be wrong.
No, it

 *IS A DISHONEST DODGE AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL QUESTION*

No, YOU are a dishoneast dodge from the actual question

 Most of my reviewers switch to rhetoric when they
know that they are wrong and still want to disagree.
Disagreement (not truth) is their highest priority.
 

Nope, that is just you projecting again.