Path: ...!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: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:06:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8d96b4dc99c7e8643b6fda45f200891d920b2acd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me>
 <XpecnXs9MtzKApD1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <QJ-dnfPs3ckgO5D1nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <KvSdnTEjuOT7x5P1nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 01:44:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2185630"; 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: <KvSdnTEjuOT7x5P1nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 14814
Lines: 283

On 4/27/25 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 10:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 27/04/2025 04:07, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/04/2025 01:22, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 1:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 12:16 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derived their outputs by applying finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on is completely proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Youy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms of finite string operations. The problem 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve do not need to be based on that, but on just 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general mappings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings to finite strings that might not be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorith of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation steps to make that mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string operations that can be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are, the operations that the processor 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executes. How did you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it works?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to actually show the actual steps instead of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when deriving 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> state from the string description of DD?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language (the line of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demarcation between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, where is that line?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out
>>>>>>>>>>>> which rules are violated because they already
>>>>>>>>>>>> know that HHH does not violate any rules and
>>>>>>>>>>>> they are only playing trollish head games.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the finite
>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language
>>>>>>>>>>>> does emulate [00002133] through [0000213c] which
>>>>>>>>>>>> causes HHH to emulate itself emulating DD again
>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive emulation repeating the cycle of
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] through [0000213c].
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finite recursion, 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by
>>>>>>>>>> any HHH that applies finite string transformation
>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to its input
>>>>>>>>>> no DD can possibly reach its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, as you can't have an infinte series of a 
>>>>>>>>> function that has been defined to be a specific instance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One recursive emulation of HHH emulating itself emulating
>>>>>>>> DD after DD has already been emulated by DD once conclusively
>>>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> simulated DD would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its *simulated D would never*
>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted* then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it 
>>>>>>> has been proven that he doesn't:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>  > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with 
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>  > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't 
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>  > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply 
>>>>>>> to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to
>>>>>> understand the significance of what he agreed to
>>>>>> does not entail that he did not agree with my
>>>>>> meanings of what he agreed to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to
>>>>>> understand the notion of recursive emulation.
>>>>>> Without this it is impossible to see the significance
>>>>>> of my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, 
>>>>> and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words*
>>>
>>> He most certainly did not!  He presumably agreed to what he /thought/ 
>>> you meant by the words.
>>>
>>> Since there is a natural interpretation of those words which would be 
>>> correct, and relevant to a discussion concerning a simulating HD, my 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========