Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:36:09 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me> <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:36:21 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2195727"; 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: <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9517
Lines: 182

On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final staste even if an unbounded number of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an unbounded number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator reports that it is unable to reach the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the simulation of a program that halts in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not computing the required mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM UTC-5, olcott 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > In other words you could find any error in my post 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so you resort to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > lame tactic of ad hominem personal attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonders*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your error like a bot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the direct execution of another TM. I proved
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is based on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input
>>>>>>>>>>> and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping
>>>>>>>>>>> from inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* 
>>>>>>>>>> output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input 
>>>>>>>> domain to a member of the output domain as per the requirements.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It doesn't 
>>>>>>>> matter how it's done.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output
>>>>>>> on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property
>>>>>>> of this input it is not a Turing computable function.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    return 5;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an
>>>>> algorithm that derive an output on the basis of
>>>>> an input) jack shit it makes a guess.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that 
>>>> have a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
>>>
>>> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping
>>> from a finite string to its length using a sequence
>>> of algorithmic steps.
>>>
>>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a
>>> finite string of machine code to the behavior that
>>> this finite string specifies.
>>>
>>
>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine 
>> described when it is actually run.
>>
> 
> In other words the halting problem is defined to
> not be allowed to use computable functions and it
> is this screwball definition that prevents the
> halting function from being Turing computable.
> 

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========