Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/2025 5:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/7/2025 4:10 PM, dbush wrote:

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:
>

 Liar

And now you lie about having made such an admission when the evidence is right there below in black and white for all to see.
Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
And the fact that you trimmed the below in your reply in an attempt to hide the fact that you lied further shows your dishonesty.

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