Path: news.eternal-september.org!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: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:39:04 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <87b108565517f564ba2209f1a1d8051ef08d73e2@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <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> <vsabfr$2tqng$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsaeba$34hfa$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 07:39:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2360712"; 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

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:38:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/29/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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 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
End of story.

>>>>>>>>>> 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.

>> As well as the machine code bytes of the function HHH and the machine
>> code bytes of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, is that
>> of a program that halts when executed directly, which is the required
>> behavior to report on.
> The test program must ignore its own behavior when testing the
> program-under-test.
Now that is some nonsense. The test program is part of the program under
test; you said yourself one cannot ignore this relationship.

-- 
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.