Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input to HHH(DD)

On 5/11/2025 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/11/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sat, 10 May 2025 18:48:12 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

>

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:

>

[ .... ]

>

I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer science
would spend years working on so few lines of code.

>
>

I created a whole x86utm operating system.
It correctly determines that the halting problem's otherwise
"impossible" input is actually non halting.

>

You've spent over 20 years on this matter.  Compare this with Alan
Turing's solution of the Entscheidungsproblem.  He published this in
1936 when he was just 24 years old.

>

Turing didn't solve anything: what he published contained a mistake: the
category (type) error that I have described previously in this forum.

>

OK, then, give the page and line numbers from Turing's 1936 paper where
this alleged mistake was made.  I would be surprised indeed if you'd even
looked at Turing's paper, far less understood it.  Yet you're ready to
denigrate his work.

>

Perhaps it is time for you to withdraw these uncalled for insinuations.

>

/Flibble

>
>

It is the whole gist of the entire idea of
the halting problem proof that is wrongheaded.

>
You are, in fact, quite wrong.  The halting problem is in the field of
mathematics.  You are ignorant of this field, thus unable to contribute
towards it, or make judgments about it.
>
If you still think you are correct, and cannot point out a flaw in Alan
Turing's original 1936 paper, perhaps you can find somebody qualified,
i.e. with (at least) a first degree in mathematics, to back up your
claim.
>

 The flaw is that the conclusion is incorrect.

False, as it was derived from a series of truth preserving operations starting with accepted axioms.
That you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it wrong.

One can ignore every step in a proof and show
that it is wrong by simply proving that its
conclusion is incorrect.
 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 It is baby talk obvious that DDD emulated by HHH
according to the rules of the x86 language

Is something it doesn't do as you 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