Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Turing computable functions --- EEE(III)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:01:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <84073571a0fa416a9aac1b3a265090b9edc47813@i2pn2.org>
References: <vruvsn$3tamc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b30f38e665d23dc01c09381c00edbb015a493508@i2pn2.org>
 <vrv9ed$73q7$3@dont-email.me>
 <f8638b87b68e331708798bac855a4a8f978ee166@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvrji$ncok$2@dont-email.me>
 <40689344755f68adfd9bb3d3d43f045c85d5e1de@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1b2u$2346o$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:01:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1896875"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vs1b2u$2346o$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/26/25 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/26/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/25/25 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/25 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/25/2025 4:16 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from their inputs.
>>>>>> In particular, your HHH does not compute the behaviour of its input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A Turing machine halt decider cannot possibly report on the 
>>>>>>> behavior of
>>>>>>> any directly executing process.
>>>>>>> No Turing machine can every do this. This has always been beyond 
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> any Turing machine can ever do.
>>>>>>> The best that any Turing machine halt decider can possibly do is
>>>>>>> determine the behavior that an input finite string specifies.
>>>>>> Which iiis... surprise, whatever happens when you run it. You are
>>>>>> basically saying that simulators can make shit up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When an input finite string specifies a pathological relationship 
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> its simulating halt decider the actual behavior that pathological
>>>>>>> relationship derives must be reported because THAT IS THE 
>>>>>>> BEHAVIOR THAT
>>>>>>> IS SPECIFIED BY THIS INPUT FINITE STRING.
>>>>>> The relationship doesn't derive anything.
>>>>>> It is a tautology that a simulator reports what it reports. That 
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> make that correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> EEE emulates a finite number of steps EEE including
>>>>> EEE emulating itself emulating III a finite number of times.
>>>>>
>>>>> _III()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> III has different behavior when emulated by any EEE
>>>>> than when it is emulated by any other emulator.
>>>>>
>>>>> When III is emulated by EEE it never reaches its
>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> When III is emulated by any other emulator it
>>>>> ALWAYS reaches its final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> ALWAYS is the opposite of NEVER.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So?
>>>>
>>>> Since you defined that EEE wasn't a UTM, its result is allowed to be 
>>>> subjective.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same thing works for UTMs too yet they do not have
>>> such a concise fully specified language where we can
>>> directly see every micro-step of the algorithm.
>>
>> Sure they do. You just need to look at the actual implementation of an 
>> actual UTM.
>>
>>>
>>>> The behavior of III is, and always is, the behavior of its direct 
>>>> execution or the complete emulation of it by a REAL UTM, which for ALL 
>>>
>>> You have already said that there is no complete emulation.
>>
>> Not by EEE, but by the UTM.
>>
>>>
>>>> your EEEs that only emulate a finite number of steps and then return 
>>>> will always be to HALT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the III emulated by the EEEs that never halt.
>>
>> No, it is the partial emulation of III by any EEE never reaches a 
>> final state.
>>
>> The fact that none of your EEE make a complete emulation means none of 
>> them actually establish "Halting" for the III.
>>
>> And the partial emulation does halt, when EEE aborts it.
>>
> 
> Stops running is not halting.

But programs don't just "stop running".

> Reaches a final halt state is halting.
> III emulated by EEE never reaches its final halt state
> even after an infinite number of steps are emulated.

Because EEE is not a correct emulator, because it is a partial emulator,

Only COMPLETE emulation is correct for determining final behavior, and 
thus your argument is just ADMITTING that you are just  liar.

> 
>>>
>>>> Note, none of those EEE ever showed the ACTUAL behavior of their 
>>>> input, as that is BY DEFINITION, the behavior of that emulation by 
>>>> the UTM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The behavior of III is
>>>   [00002172]  [00002173]  [00002175]  [0000217a]...
>>> This was always self-evident to anyone that knows the x86 language.
>>
>> And what is after [0000217a], it SHOLD be [000015D2] but EEE don't 
>> know what is there, or breaks the rules looking there.
>>
>> All you are doing it proving that it isn't just ordinary stupidity, 
>> but deliberate FRAUD based on pathological stupidity that you speak 
>> out of.
>>
>> It seems you have just enough knowledge of what you say to avoid 
>> making your lies obvious enough to yourself that you might snap out of 
>> your brainwashing.
>>
>>>
>>>> You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about, 
>>>> and your stupidity to not see your ignorance.
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
>