Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

Am Wed, 07 May 2025 00:06:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 9:53 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 07/05/2025 00:11, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 5:49 PM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 06/05/2025 21:25, olcott wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:35 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/6/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:

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:
>

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.
>

Machine address by machine address specifics that you know that
you cannot provide because you know that you are wrong.
>

HHH and UTM emulate DD exactly the same up until the point that
HHH aborts,

>
When you trace through the actual steps you will see that this is
counter-factual.

>
No, it is exactly right.  Remember, I posted a comparison of the
two traces side by side some time ago, and they were indeed
IDENTICAL line for line up to the point where HHH decided to
discontinue simulating.

>
That is counter-factual.

>
Dude!  :/  I posted the comparison and the traces were the same up to
the point where HHH discontinued the simulation.  How can it be
"counter-factual"?
>

HHH1(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns.
HHH(DD) the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly return.
>
A call that returns and a call that cannot possibly return *are not
exactly the same thing*

 
They are exactly the same up to the point that HHH aborted,

 
Counter-Factual they are exactly the same up until The simulated /
executed DD calls HHH(DD).

Oh really? What do they do differently?

It is a long time later that HHH aborts the simulation of its input DD.

When does that happen?

After the executed DD calls the executed HHH(DD) HHH emulates DD then
emulates itself emulating DD. This is a very long time after the
divergence point.

*You* post the traces then.

--
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.