Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input

On 5/7/25 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 since the defined HHH doesn't do that, the phrase DD correctly emulated by HHH is just a lie refering to a non-existant thing,.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a ignorant pathological liar that is just to stupid to learn the meaning of the words he uses, and doesn't believe he needs to follow the rules.
That is what will put you into that Lake of Fire.