On 5/11/2025 1:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2025 11:52 AM, dbush wrote:
On 5/11/2025 12:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 5/11/2025 6:13 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 10 May 2025 15:42:13 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 5/10/2025 3:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
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.
>
It is the whole gist of the entire idea of the halting problem proof
that is wrongheaded.
(1) It is anchored in the false assumption that an input to a
termination analyzer can actually do this opposite of whatever value
that this analyzer returns. No one ever notices that this "do the
opposite" code is unreachable.
>
The simulated DDD doesn't matter. HHH returns to DDD, and DDD then does
the opposite.
>
>
HHH is only allowed to report on the behavior that
its actual input actually specifies.
>
False. It must report on the behavior of the algorithm described by the input, as per the requirements:
>
That was always only based on the false assumption
that these behaviors could not possibly diverge.
When I proves that these behaviors DO diverge that
changes everything.
Assuming you're correct (which you're not), that means that HHH is not allowed to report on the behavior that its input specifies, but must instead report on the behavior of the algorithm described by it's input when executed directly.
functions computed by models of computation
must transform inputs into outputs by applying
an specific algorithm.
And the halting function cannot be computed, as Linz and others have proves and as you have *explicitly*
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum coverts its inputs to an output on
the basis of the rules of arithmetic.
Which is can do, since the sum mapping is a computable function.
A simulating termination analyzer within a
model of computation transforms inputs into
the behavior that these inputs specify according
to the computing language of this model of
computation.
Which means a simulating termination analyzer is not a termination analyzer because it is not performing the transform bases on the algorithm that the input describes.
_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]
DDD emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language cannot possibly halt.
And it doesn't do that, 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
All that you have ever been showing is your own lack
of comprehension of the subtle nuances of the details
of functions computed by models of computation.
HHH is not allowed to violate the rules of the x86
language just to conform to some quote in a textbook.
Yet it does, 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
Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable
Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable
