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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:03:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <bf63932400c48df159394c2b029844ab6100d8ca@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
 <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:03:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2120767"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6484
Lines: 111

On 3/27/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
> 

ThenI guess your model of compuations can't handle numbers or words with 
their meanings.

Of course they can take a TM via a representation that fully defines it 
in the language of the receiving TM. And from that representation, there 
exist a mapping (not necessarily computable) of that input to its behavior.

The exastance of UTMs is proof that you are lying, and your whole proof 
dependion them, and you MIS-DEFINITION of what they do.

Note, the definition of a PROBLEM to try to solve by a Turing Machine 
doesn't need to be based on a computable function. You can only succeed 
if it is one.

The fact that the Halting Function, the mapping of a actual Turing 
Machine (or its equivalent or description thereof) to whether it Halts 
or runs FOREVER, is a valid function, as it has a mapping for every 
possible machine. The fact that it turns out to be non-computable, means 
that their can not be a Halt Decider, as you have actually 'proven" in 
you claim to disprove it by creating a strawman POOP decider.

Sorry, you are stuck just being shown to be nothing but a pathological liar.