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
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:12:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 01:12:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2329472"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5574
Lines: 99

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.

Or, are you admitting you don't understand the meaning of a program?

If D doesn't include the machine it calls, then NOTHING can emulate it 
past the call instruction without violating the definition of a 
computation/pure program, which you have admitted is a core requirement 
of your decider (which it turns out it never met).

Sorry, you are just proving that you don't understand what you are 
talking about.