Path: ...!news.snarked.org!xmission!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 19:00:07 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d4b0dc696ff4aebfa20f86d0eb74d568e0da38cf@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$3@dont-email.me> <N9pOP.661763$l0_4.411029@fx43.iad>
 <vue4rt$28iho$6@dont-email.me> <vue5uc$27hl2$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue99e$2d7t8$4@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 23:25:16 -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: <vue99e$2d7t8$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5730
Lines: 83

On 4/24/25 5:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/24/2025 3:11 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 21:53 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/24/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/25 11:38 AM, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from the DD emulated by HHH, when correctly 
>>>> emulated returns, just after the point that HHH gives up.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Factually Incorrect.
>>>
>>> The directly executed DD has zero recursive invocations.
>>> DD emulated by HHH has one recursive invocation.
>>>
>>> THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION
>>> AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES.
>>>
>>>
>> Factually incorrect, both the direct execution and the simulation have 
>> a finite recursion. 
> 
> You are stupidly wrong about this.
> 

No, you are, as you admit by not showing what instuction causes your 
claimed behavior.

You seem to think that a call instruction can do something other than go 
into the function being called.