Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:44:49 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:44:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2583426"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5807
Lines: 84

Am Sun, 30 Mar 2025 21:13:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>> An input that halts when executed directly is not non-
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
Yes, HHH is off the topic of deciding halting.

>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>>>>> 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.
What does "specify to" mean? Which behaviour is correct?

>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
>>>>> OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>> How does HHH emulate the call to HHH instruction
>>> The semantics of the x86 language.
>> Right, which were defined by INTEL, and requires the data emulated to
>> be part of the input.
> It is part of the input in the sense that HHH must emulate itself
> emulating DDD. HHH it the test program thus not the program-under-test.
It is part of the program under test, being called by it. That's what
you call a pathological relationship.

> HHH is not asking does itself halt?
Yes it is saying "I can't simulate this".

> It was encoded to always halt for
> such inputs. HHH is asking does this input specify that it reaches its
> own final halt state?
Which it does (except when simulated by HHH).

>> Is it guessing based on your limited input that doesn't contain the
>> code at 000015d2, or
>> Is it admitting to not being a pure function, by looking outsde the
>> input to the function (since you say that above is the full input), or
>> Are you admitting all of Halt7.c/obj as part of the input, and thus you
>> hae a FIXED definition of HHH, which thus NEVER does a complete
>> emulation, and thus you can't say that the call to HHH is a complete
>> emulation.
>> 
>>> How we we determine that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>> final halt state?
>>> Two recursive emulations provide correct inductive proof.
>> Nope, because if you admit to the first two lies, your HHH never was a
>> valid decider,
-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.