Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 5:09 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 3:53 PM, dbush wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 3:24 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 13:40:16 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 10:53 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 06 May 2025 10:29:59 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/6/2025 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-05-05 17:37:20 +0000, olcott said:

>

The above example is category error because it asks HHH(DD) to
report on the direct execution of DD() and the input to HHH
specifies a different sequence of steps.

>
No, it does not. The input is DD specifides exactly the same sequence
of steps as DD. HHH just answers about a different sequence of steps
instead of the the seqeunce specified by its input.

As agreed to below:
>

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
       If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
       until H correctly determines that its simulated D *would never
       stop running unless aborted* then
>
*input D* is the actual input *would never stop running unless
aborted* is the hypothetical H/D pair where H does not abort.

>

H should simulate its actual input D that calls the aborting H, not a
hypothetical version of D that calls a pure simulator.
>

*would never stop running unless aborted*
refers to the same HHH that DD calls yet this hypothetical HHH does not
abort.

Then it is not the same HHH.
>

>
It is the exact same HHH/DD pair except that this
hypothetical HHH never aborts.
>

You cannot possibly show the exact execution trace where DD is
correctly emulated by HHH and this emulated DD reaches past its own
machine address [0000213c].

>

Duh, no simulator can simulate itself correctly. But HHH1 can simulate
DD/HHH.

HHH does simulate itself correctly yet must create a separate process
context for each recursive emulation.
Each process context has its own stack and set of virtual registers.

>

No, HHH simulates only one program.

>
HHH correctly emulates DD

>
>
A lie, as you have admitted otherwise on the record:
>

>
AS I HAVE SAID HUNDREDS OF TIMES AND YOU DISHONESTLY IGNORE
Correct emulation is defined as DD is emulated by
HHH according to the rules of the x86 language.
>

  Which it doesn't do, as you have admitted on the record: