Path: ...!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
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:09:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <deeb3a6b79cb37e11164c2e9e2db2fee5898388c@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me>
 <c7cef434e4b41a664e29443146bb81b18132941d@i2pn2.org>
 <vs6qfu$39556$4@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 22:21:01 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2173613"; 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: <vs6qfu$39556$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7072
Lines: 128

On 3/28/25 2:41 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 8:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/27/25 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 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. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on
>>>>> behavior that matches the behavior of a directly
>>>>> executing TM.
>>>>
>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the 
>>>> halting problem:
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description
>>> D correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior
>>> correctly simulated by UTM2.
>>
>> Show a case.
>>
>> Remember the DEFINITION of a UTM, it is a machine that exactly 
>> reproduces the behavior of the program that is decribed by its input.
> 
> Then that definition is incorrect.

Definitions can not be "incorrect" except by being contradictory to a 
previously establish definition in the system.

> When a finite number of steps of input D are simulated
> according to the semantics of its language the directly
> executed D halts and the D that calls its own UTM never halts.

But our D doesn't CALL "its" UTM, but its decider.

> 
> I spent years carefully studying this as the Peter Linz
> example. https://www.liarparadox.org/Linz_Proof.pdf
> 
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> and embedded_H is a UTM based halt decider
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> 
> Pages 4-6
> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
> publication/374806722_Does_the_halting_problem_place_an_actual_limit_on_computation
> 

And still don't understand what it says, as you keep on try to make 
embedded_H something different than H itself.