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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 ---
 STA
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:27:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 01:34:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2611579"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14300
Lines: 276

On 3/31/25 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/31/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========