Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!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 ---
 STA
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 06:36:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bf1e010d6259a4e5e1118f51856f3c72a0094b34@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org>
 <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me>
 <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
 <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 11:06:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2664280"; 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: <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 15642
Lines: 291

On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/31/25 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 5:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 8:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 30.mrt.2025 om 04:35 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The behavior that these machine code bytes specify:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 558bec6872210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as an input to HHH is different than these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same bytes as input to HHH1 as a verified fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, are you admitting you don't understand the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of a program?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you "just don't believe in" verified 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That completely depends on who has verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every verified fact IS TRUE BY DEFINITION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, if the verifiers lies, then his "verification" isn't 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========