Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:24:28 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <30a6b1eb6f69e2e06bd82aa8274fa7e6c8dd4b2c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me>
 <XpecnXs9MtzKApD1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <tuWdnSHkMfbIzJP1nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2185630"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <tuWdnSHkMfbIzJP1nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 19018
Lines: 428

On 4/27/25 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 10:07 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/04/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 1:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 12:16 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derived their outputs by applying finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on is completely proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Youy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms of finite string operations. The problem they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve do not need to be based on that, but on just 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general mappings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings to finite strings that might not be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorith of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation steps to make that mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string operations that can be applied 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are, the operations that the processor 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executes. How did you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it works?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to actually show the actual steps instead of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL!
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when deriving a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> state from the string description of DD?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language (the line of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demarcation between
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, where is that line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out
>>>>>>>>>>> which rules are violated because they already
>>>>>>>>>>> know that HHH does not violate any rules and
>>>>>>>>>>> they are only playing trollish head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the finite
>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language
>>>>>>>>>>> does emulate [00002133] through [0000213c] which
>>>>>>>>>>> causes HHH to emulate itself emulating DD again
>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive emulation repeating the cycle of
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] through [0000213c].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Finite recursion, 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by
>>>>>>>>> any HHH that applies finite string transformation
>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to its input
>>>>>>>>> no DD can possibly reach its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, as you can't have an infinte series of a 
>>>>>>>> function that has been defined to be a specific instance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One recursive emulation of HHH emulating itself emulating
>>>>>>> DD after DD has already been emulated by DD once conclusively
>>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulated DD would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it 
>>>>>> has been proven that he doesn't:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>  > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with 
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>  > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't 
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>  > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply 
>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to
>>>>> understand the significance of what he agreed to
>>>>> does not entail that he did not agree with my
>>>>> meanings of what he agreed to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to
>>>>> understand the notion of recursive emulation.
>>>>> Without this it is impossible to see the significance
>>>>> of my work.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, 
>>>> and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words*
>>
>> He most certainly did not!  He presumably agreed to what he /thought/ 
>> you meant by the words.
>>
> 
> I know what I meant by my words and rephrased them
> so that everyone that says that HHH should report
> on the direct execution of DD looks ridiculously foolish.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========