Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 10:44 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 07/05/2025 04:11, 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:
>
<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.
>

>
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*

>
You need to read what posters actually say.  I said the traces were the same up to the point where HHH stops simulating.

 THAT IS COUNTER-FACTUAL.

A lie, as you have admitted on the record that they are the same:
On 5/6/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/6/2025 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
 >> On 5/6/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>> On 5/6/2025 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>>> On 5/6/2025 3:31 PM, dbush wrote:
 >>>>> Then what is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs
 >>>>> from the emulation performed by UTM?
 >>>>>
 >>>>
 >>>> HHH1 is exactly the same as HHH except that DD
 >>>> does not call HHH1. This IS the UTM emulator.
 >>>> It does not abort.
 >>>
 >>> Last chance:
 >>>
 >>> What is the first instruction emulated by HHH that differs from the
 >>> emulation performed by HHH1?
 >>
 >> Go back and read the part you ignored moron.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has neglected to identify an
 > instruction that HHH emulates differently from HHH1.
 >
 >>> Failure to provide this in your next message or within one hour of
 >>> your next post in this newsgroup will be taken as your official on-
 >>> the-record admission that the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1
 >>> are in fact exactly the same up until the point that HHH aborts, at
 >>> which point HHH did not correctly simulate the last instruction it
 >>> simulated as you are previously on record as admitting.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above requirements:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That the emulations performed by HHH and HHH1 are in fact exactly the
 > same up until the point that HHH aborts, at which point HHH did not
 > correctly simulate the last instruction it simulated as he is previously
 > on record as admitting.