Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 21:32:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 128
Message-ID: <v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org> <v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org> <v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me>
 <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org> <v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me>
 <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org> <v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me>
 <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me> <v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me>
 <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org> <v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 04:32:15 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="08a73d0f9257967986a8324b25ade22a";
	logging-data="2173207"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18jcLD3z4nXmwLVpF6c6mBM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5iZW6gDj9xxzxW8aQYZWE4XhpFE=
In-Reply-To: <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6148

On 5/30/2024 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/30/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/30/2024 8:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/30/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2024 2:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-30 01:15:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>>>> x <is> a finite string Turing machine description that SPECIFIES 
>>>>>> behavior. The term: "representing" is inaccurate.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, x is a description of the Turing machine that specifies the 
>>>>> behaviour
>>>>> that H is required to report. 
>>>>
>>>> That is what I said.
>>>
>>> Note, the string doesn't DIRECTLY specify behavior, but only 
>>> indirectly as a description/representation of the Turing Mach
>>>
>>
>> The string directly SPECIFIES behavior to a UTM or to
>> any TM based on a UTM.
> 
> By telling that UTM information about the state-transition table of the 
> machine.
> 
> Note, the description of the machine doesn't depend on the input given 
> to it, so it needs to fully specify how to recreate the behavior of the 
> machine for ALL inputs (an infinite number of them) in a finite string.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The maning of x is that there is a universal
>>>>> Turing machine that, when given x and y, simulates what the described
>>>>> Turing machine does when given y. 
>>>>
>>>> Yes that is also correct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H is a UTM then it never halts.
>>>
>>> But it isn't unless H is also a UTM, and then H never returns.
>>>
>>> You like to keep returning to that deception.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H is a simulating halt decider then its correctly
>>>> simulated input never reaches its own simulated final state of
>>>> ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and halts. H itself does halt and correctly rejects its
>>>> input as non-halting.
>>>
>>> Except that isn't what the question is, the question is what the 
>>> actual behavior of the machine described, or equivalently, the 
>>> simulation by a REAL UTM (one that never stops till done).
>>
>> When embedded_H is a real UTM then Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never stops and embedded_H is
>> not a decider.
> 
> Right, that is YOUR delema. You can't make H / embedded_H a UTM without 
> making it not a decider, thus "Correct Simulation by H" can't be the 
> answer, since H can't do both.
> 
>>
>> When embedded_H is based on a real UTM then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated
>> by embedded_H never reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ in
>> any finite number of steps and after these finite steps embedded_H
>> halts.
> 
> Then its simulation isn't "correct" per the definitions that relate 
> simulation to behavior.
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();  // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00       int HH(ptr p, ptr i);
01       int DD(ptr p)
02       {
03         int Halt_Status = HH(p, p);
04         if (Halt_Status)
05           HERE: goto HERE;
06         return Halt_Status;
07       }
08
09       int main()
10       {
11         HH(DD,DD);
12         return 0;
13       }

In other words you are insisting that every correct simulation
of DD by HH must simulate the following x86 machine code of DD
*incorrectly or in the incorrect order* because the following
machine code proves that DD correctly simulated by HH cannot
possibly reach its own machine address of 00001c47.

_DD()
[00001c22] 55         push ebp
[00001c23] 8bec       mov ebp,esp
[00001c25] 51         push ecx
[00001c26] 8b4508     mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001c29] 50         push eax         ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2a] 8b4d08     mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001c2d] 51         push ecx         ; push DD 1c22
[00001c2e] e80ff7ffff call 00001342    ; call HH
[00001c33] 83c408     add esp,+08
[00001c36] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
[00001c39] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[00001c3d] 7402       jz 00001c41
[00001c3f] ebfe       jmp 00001c3f
[00001c41] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
[00001c44] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
[00001c46] 5d         pop ebp
[00001c47] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0038) [00001c47]

*I am going to stop here and not respond to anything else*
*that you say until AFTER this one point is fully resolved*


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer