Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 9:22 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 1:18 AM, Richard Heathfield 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:

>
<snip>
>

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.

>
People who can be bothered to check for themselves can check for themselves.
>
People who (like me) can't be arsed to go through the palaver of getting your code to work must instead decide who they think is more credible - you or Mike.
>
No contest.
>
If you want people to believe you, you've got your work cut out. Shooting emotionally from the hip (as you do) isn't as convincing as explaining precisely, logically, and dispassionately why you're right (as Mike does).
>
If I were to run a book right now on an independent investigation of the point in the trace where the two traces diverge, I could offer astronomical odds on your claim without any fear of losing a penny, but no matter what odds I offered on Mike I would quickly have to close the book on his claim or face bankruptcy.
>
It isn't just your logic that needs a lot off work; it's your presentation, too. You come across as someone who /believes/ you're right, but it's not enough to call down lightning on Mike the heretic; Mike manages to keep calm because he /knows/ he's right. There's a huge and important difference between the two.
>
There's also an important difference between claiming that Mike's claim is counter-factual and /proving/ that his claim is counter-factual.

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 Any sufficiently competent C programmer can see that
when DD is correctly simulated by HHH

A lie, as you yourself have admitted on the record:
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH