Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 22:07:32 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <de6714a84fde80eb940801a744f552c0e4d7784e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me> <vuju44$3hnda$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuk47o$3qkbb$1@dont-email.me> <vuk6b6$3l184$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuls34$1bf1j$4@dont-email.me> <vun87k$2m24h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vunb06$2fjjl$5@dont-email.me> <vuo57j$3h5l9$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 02:07:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2331913"; 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: <vuo57j$3h5l9$2@dont-email.me>

On 4/28/25 11:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/28/2025 2:33 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 28/04/2025 07:46, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> So we agree that no algorithm exists that can determine for all 
>>> possible inputs whether the input specifies a program that (according 
>>> to the semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed.
>>> Correct?
>>
>> Correct. We can, however, construct such an algorithm just as long as 
>> we can ignore any input we don't like the look of.
>>
> 
> The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot be derived
> by applying the finite string transformation rules specified
> by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD). This proves that
> this is the wrong behavior to measure.

Sure they can. That is what direct execution DOES.

What makes you think they can't be?

You keep on making this LYING CLAIM, and can't actually prove it, 
because you just are too ignorant about the rules you are talking about.

The problem is that HHH can't do that, as if it tries to be a correct 
emulator, and fully obey the transformation rules, it gets stuck being 
non-halting, because the DD that calls it in THAT case is non-halting.

> 
> It is the behavior THAT IS derived by applying the finite
> string transformation rules specified by the x86 language
> to the input to HHH(DD) proves that THE EMULATED DD NEVER HALTS.

But for any HHH that transforms DD -> 0, the transforms defined by the 
full definition of the x86 language, which *IS* what happens when you 
directly execute it, it to reach the final state and halt.

> 
>> Similarly, we can construct a list that contains all possible real 
>> numbers just as long as we can ignore any iffy numbers that smell a 
>> funny colour.
>>
> 
>