Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 22:36:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me> <vs9r1b$28tqg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
 <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 02:40:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2476048"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 12026
Lines: 244

On 3/30/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/30/2025 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/30/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/25 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/30/2025 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/30/25 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 8:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 30.mrt.2025 om 04:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/25 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 5:08 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of a Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an actual running 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM, only mapping properties of the TM described. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the concrete counter-example that I provided that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that the finite string of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code input is not always a valid proxy for the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the underlying virtual machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can take a description of any Turing machine and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly reproduce the behavior of the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input can be correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and neither 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will the input when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulates a finite number of steps of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) then you no longer have a UTM, so statements about a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM don't apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps of its input that this finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps were simulated correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the behavior of the direct execution as it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An input that halts when executed directly is not non- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the input was in any way changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you're changing the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a finite number of steps 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And is therefore no longer a UTM that does a correct and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> complete simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and input D calls UTM1 then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D simulated by UTM1 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I asked about.  I asked about the behavior of D 
>>>>>>>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Off topic for this thread.
>>>>>>>>>>> UTM1 D DOES NOT HALT
>>>>>>>>>>> UTM2 D HALTS
>>>>>>>>>>> D is the same finite string in both cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't, not if it is the definition of a PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The behavior that these machine code bytes specify:
>>>>>>>>> 558bec6872210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>>>>>>>> as an input to HHH is different than these
>>>>>>>>> same bytes as input to HHH1 as a verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or, are you admitting you don't understand the meaning of a 
>>>>>>>>>> program?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems that you "just don't believe in" verified facts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That completely depends on who has verified it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it does not. That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>> Every verified fact IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, if the verifiers lies, then his "verification" isn't valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the way semantic tautology works.
>>>>> If the father of lies says that cats are animals
>>>>> then cats are still animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, do you accept the verification by the election deniers that 
>>>>>> show that there was the possibility of the fraud,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a possibility that five minutes ago never existed.
>>>>> Claiming that there was fraud when you know there was no
>>>>> evidence of fraud might get you eternally incinerated.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A guess you have to or you are admitting yourself to be a hypocrite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If everyone can see that the way in which Olcott verifies his 
>>>>>>>> 'facts' is only a baseless claim, I do not believe in the 
>>>>>>>> verification. In particular when he does not fix the errors in 
>>>>>>>> the verification that were pointed out to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My claims are verified as true entirely on the basis
>>>>>>> of the  meaning of their words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========