XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > Op 23.jul.2025 om 06:05 schreef olcott:   
   >> On 7/22/2025 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> No, YOU changed the subject of the problem from the OBJECTIVE   
   >>> behavior of the execution of DDD, to the SUBJECTIVE criteria of what   
   >>> HHH sees.   
   >>>   
      
   It is always the case that every halt decider is   
   only accountable for the behavior that its actual   
   input specifies and not accountable for the behavior   
   of any non-inputs. The textbooks don't do it this   
   way proves that textbooks are wrong.   
      
   Textbooks incorrectly assume that the behavior specified   
   by the finite string machine description of ⟨M⟩ is always   
   the same as the behavior of machine M. That is not the   
   case when M calls its own termination analyzer.   
      
   Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping from   
   their input finite strings to the behavior that these   
   finite strings specify.   
      
   >>   
   >> *Its been three years now and you can't remember*   
   >>    
   >>      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   
   >>   
   >>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
   >>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Repeating the agreement with a vacuous statement is no rebuttal.   
   > Since there is no H that correctly simulates D until it correctly   
   > detects that its D would never stop unless aborted', the conclusion is   
   > irrelevant.   
   >   
      
   _DD()   
   [00002162] 55             push ebp   
   [00002163] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   [00002165] 51             push ecx   
   [00002166] 6862210000     push 00002162 // push DD   
   [0000216b] e862f4ffff     call 000015d2 // call HHH   
   [00002170] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   [00002173] 8945fc         mov [ebp-04],eax   
   [00002176] 837dfc00       cmp dword [ebp-04],+00   
   [0000217a] 7402           jz 0000217e   
   [0000217c] ebfe           jmp 0000217c   
   [0000217e] 8b45fc         mov eax,[ebp-04]   
   [00002181] 8be5           mov esp,ebp   
   [00002183] 5d             pop ebp   
   [00002184] c3             ret   
   Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184]   
      
   Counter-factual.   
   That you do not understand the semantics of the   
   x86 language well enough to understand that this   
   is true is less than no rebuttal at all.   
      
   In the several years that I have presenting this   
   not one person has come up with a single correct   
   rebuttal to the statement that DD emulated by HHH   
   (according to the semantics of the x86 language)   
   would ever stop running of not aborted.   
      
   All of the rebuttals either used the strawman   
   deception to change the subject or were merely   
   a statement that my statement was really really   
   disbelieved. No one ever pointed out any actual error.   
      
   > D halts even when not aborted,   
      
   Neither DD simulated by HHH, HHH nor DD()   
   halts unless HHH aborts its simulation of DD.   
   Disagreement is merely a failure to understand.   
      
   > because it calls a function H that aborts   
   > and halts. The simulation of an aborting H has no need to be aborted.   
   > Unless you change the input, but that is cheating.   
      
   Alternatively DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly   
   reach its own "ret" instruction and halt no matter   
   what HHH does.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)