Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 17:07:53 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6720f48a92e0749aa7ce4df048f6635962257f2c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me> <vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <vucrgq$148pf$1@dont-email.me> <vudkt8$1ona3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vudp39$1rhdn$1@dont-email.me> <vudrgb$20gck$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue2fb$27hl3$1@dont-email.me> <vue464$28iho$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue57b$27hl3$3@dont-email.me> <vue8qm$2d7t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb382175aa6cc9a806dedc1d2bcfbd916dfaf1b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vuejgn$2md4c$3@dont-email.me>
 <ae8fce7ec0639d76c87bf1af0dfbc2a806053899@i2pn2.org>
 <vugucr$pke9$5@dont-email.me> <vui77f$217h6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuj538$2lf64$9@dont-email.me> <vuj88g$2uahf$2@dont-email.me>
 <vujd67$335tl$1@dont-email.me>
 <99367baaadfd647c1d75f4236345a3243a439a0b@i2pn2.org>
 <vujgdj$35hcg$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 21:07:54 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2020847"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vujgdj$35hcg$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4401
Lines: 59

On 4/26/25 4:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 3:23 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 14:46:12 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 4/26/2025 1:22 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>>>>>>> The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by
>>>>>>>> HHH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of the x86
>>>>>>> language.
>>>>>> HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely
>>>>>> aborting the halting program.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules of the x86 language yet no
>>>>> one can point out which rules are violated
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86
>>>> language to abort a halting function.
>>>
>>> You remains stupidly wrong about this because you refuse to show what
>>> step of DD is not emulated by HHH according to the finite string
>>> transformation rules specified by the x86 language.
> 
>> All instructions after the abort are not emulated.
>>
> 
> Still stupidly wrong.
> 
> *The best selling author of theory of computation textbooks*
> 
> <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>
> 
> Correct emulation is defined as applying the finite
> string transformation rules specified by the x86
> language to the input to HHH(DD).
> 
> Then HHH determines that DD would never stop running
> unless aborted.
> 

But your problem is that your Decider H doesn't meet that definition of 
corre3ct emulation since it stops, and it is a fact that the correectly 
emulated D *WILL* reach the end, because you H DOES abort and return 0.

Since H never correctly determined that it could correctly abort, the 
aborting that it does has no basis to be claimed to be correct, and thus 
the fact that the  actual correct emulation halts shows it WAS wrong.