Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:45:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7ec99f380f334c7b38224fb367e7dd4810645427@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me> <vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me> <vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me> <vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@dont-email.me>
 <vs4r2u$1e09p$3@dont-email.me> <vs4snt$1c1ja$9@dont-email.me>
 <e11c6f4f29bb0c77dbd10f8e20bca766712977d0@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me> <vs5r0j$2f37e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6srk$39556$12@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me>
 <e916bd7901968e2927324d9b75bee493714d6fed@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9aj3$1silm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:48:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2290707"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9aj3$1silm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 11795
Lines: 223

On 3/29/25 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/25 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its final staste even if an unbounded number 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator reports that it is unable to reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the simulation of a program that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts in direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is not computing the required mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM UTC-5, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > In other words you could find any error in my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post so you resort to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > lame tactic of ad hominem personal attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clueless wonders*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your error like a bot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the direct execution of another TM. I proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is is based on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *its* output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input 
>>>>>>>>>>>> domain to a member of the output domain as per the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It 
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't matter how it's done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output
>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property
>>>>>>>>>>> of this input it is not a Turing computable function.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    return 5;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an
>>>>>>>>> algorithm that derive an output on the basis of
>>>>>>>>> an input) jack shit it makes a guess.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings 
>>>>>>>> that have a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping
>>>>>>> from a finite string to its length using a sequence
>>>>>>> of algorithmic steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a
>>>>>>> finite string of machine code to the behavior that
>>>>>>> this finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine 
>>>>>> described when it is actually run.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========