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: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:07:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cbdb2db17901c2b844d8f8f32cb14a1180adebf3@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 11:26:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2526995"; 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: <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12705
Lines: 243

On 3/30/25 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the way semantic tautology works.
>>>>>>> If the father of lies says that cats are animals
>>>>>>> then cats are still animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or, do you accept the verification by the election deniers that 
>>>>>>>> show that there was the possibility of the fraud,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a possibility that five minutes ago never existed.
>>>>>>> Claiming that there was fraud when you know there was no
>>>>>>> evidence of fraud might get you eternally incinerated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A guess you have to or you are admitting yourself to be a 
>>>>>>>> hypocrite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If everyone can see that the way in which Olcott verifies his 
>>>>>>>>>> 'facts' is only a baseless claim, I do not believe in the 
>>>>>>>>>> verification. In particular when he does not fix the errors in 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========