Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.tomockey.net!news.samoylyk.net!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:10:17 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ffcb54a249b2a4de848e6191cb7f4cb0078b39ef@i2pn2.org>
References: <vrfuob$256og$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>
	<72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@i2pn2.org>
	<vsf402$1crun$4@dont-email.me> <vsf49v$1adee$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsf520$1crun$5@dont-email.me> <vsf6fp$1adee$2@dont-email.me>
	<vsf8pp$1i673$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:10:17 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2818780"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5587
Lines: 88

Am Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:34:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/31/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/31/2025 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:44 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Sun, 30 Mar 2025 21:13:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> 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:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is not what I asked about.  I asked about the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D when executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Off topic for this thread.
>>>>>> Yes, HHH is off the topic of deciding halting.

^

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> What does "specify to" mean? Which behaviour is correct?

^

>>>>>>>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH
>>>>>>>>>>> ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>>>>>>>> How does HHH emulate the call to HHH instruction
>>>>>>>>> The semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>> Right, which were defined by INTEL, and requires the data
>>>>>>>> emulated to be part of the input.
>>>>>>> It is part of the input in the sense that HHH must emulate itself
>>>>>>> emulating DDD. HHH it the test program thus not the program-under-
>>>>>>> test.
>>>>>> It is part of the program under test, being called by it. That's
>>>>>> what you call a pathological relationship.

^

>>>>>>> HHH is not asking does itself halt?
>>>>>> Yes it is saying "I can't simulate this".

^

>>>>>>> It was encoded to always halt for such inputs. HHH is asking does
>>>>>>> this input specify that it reaches its own final halt state?
>>>>>> Which it does (except when simulated by HHH).

^

>>>>>>>>> How we we determine that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its final halt state?
>>>>>>>>> Two recursive emulations provide correct inductive proof.
>>>>>>>> Nope, because if you admit to the first two lies, your HHH never
>>>>>>>> was a valid decider,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is ALWAYS CORRECT for any simulating termination analyzer to stop
>>>>> simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own
>>>>> termination.
>>>>>
>>>> Except when doing so changes the input, as is the case with HHH and
>>>> DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>
>>> I have already addressed your misconception that the input is changed.
>>>
>> No, it is YOUR misconception.  The algorithm DDD consists of the
>> function DDD, the function HHH, and everything that HHH calls down to
>> the OS level.
>> 
> We have already been over this.
> HHH(DDD) and HHH1(DDD) have the same inputs all the way down to the OS
> level. The ONLY difference is that DDD does not call HHH1(DDD) in
> recursive emulation.
That is actually not a difference but the same that DDD calls HHH.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.