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: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:28:21 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ae90d1a3e137abb01f687620a4e876e186b0040c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me>
 <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me> <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4>
 <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de> <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de> <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de> <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me> <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me> <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me>
 <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de> <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8cgm$2p5e$1@news.muc.de> <vu8gml$v0qa$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8m2h$vn9b$2@dont-email.me> <vu8pr1$13jl5$8@dont-email.me>
 <vu8qo3$vn9b$4@dont-email.me> <vu8ruc$13jl5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vuaaae$2lbp9$2@dont-email.me>
 <zIWdnaZKufSzmpT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vub1go$3clpn$3@dont-email.me>
 <HcWcnf7heZkdG5T1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vue4jl$28iho$5@dont-email.me> <vue5ph$27hl2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue95c$2d7t8$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 23:25:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1749012"; 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: <vue95c$2d7t8$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6663
Lines: 107

On 4/24/25 5:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2025 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 21:49 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/23/2025 7:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 23/04/2025 16:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2025 10:28 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/04/2025 10:02, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 1:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Turing Machines inputs <are> finite strings, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules <are> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>> these finite strings to derive corresponding outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it has been proven that no finite string transformations 
>>>>>>>>>>> are possible that report the halting behaviour for all inputs 
>>>>>>>>>>> that specify a correct program. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>> Only when people stupid assume the same thing as
>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) should return the sum of 5 + 3.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Therefore HHH should report on the actual input, the finite 
>>>>>>>>> string that describes a halting program. Not on the 
>>>>>>>>> hypothetical input that does not halt, because it is based on a 
>>>>>>>>> hypothetical HHH that does not abort.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you maintain that HHH should process the hypothetical 
>>>>>>>>> input instead of the actual input.
>>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that 3+2 equals 5+3?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>>>>>> x86 language have a different set of state changes
>>>>>>>> many hundreds of times for several years.
>>>>>>> You never showed a proof. You only repeated a dream. You are 
>>>>>>> dreaming many years without any logic. You failed to show the 
>>>>>>> first state change where the direct execution is different from 
>>>>>>> the simulation. You only showed an erroneous HHH that fails to 
>>>>>>> reach the end of the simulation of a halting program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Worse than this, on more than one occasion I've actually posted 
>>>>>> traces of computation DDD(DDD) executed directly and simulated by 
>>>>>> HHH side by side.  Both traces were of course /identical/, up to 
>>>>>> the point where HHH stops simulating. 
>>>>>
>>>>> *Factually incorrect* (You are usually very careful about these 
>>>>> things)
>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns.
>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...because HHH stops simulating before reaching that step in the 
>>>> computation.  Note that I said
>>>>
>>>> MT:  Both traces were of course /identical/,
>>>>       *up to the point where HHH stops simulating*
>>>>
>>>> So I was factually correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION
>>> AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES.
>>>
>>> When the finite string transformation rules of the
>>> x86 language are applied to the input to HHH(DD)
>>> THIS DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS FINAL HALT STATE
>>> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
>>>
>>
>> It is only a finite recursion. 
> 
> TOTALLY INCORRECT --- Please pay better attention.
> 
> THIS DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS FINAL HALT STATE
> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
> 
> 

Of course it does, as the HHH that it calls ALWAYS aborts after the 
finite number of steps that it does abort, and thus the CORRECT 
emulation, which your HHH doesn't do, will reach the end.

Your problem is that by defining that Halt7.c is ALWAYS part of your 
system you have forced that version of HHH to be the only and only 
version that can ever exist.

Sorry, you put your argument into checkmate.

The recusion *IS* finite, as your HHH always aborts and returns, and no 
other HHH can exist within a system that has a fixed definition of it.

All you are proving is that you idea of logic is based on being able to 
lie and suppose contradictions.