| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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,sci.logic Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:37:37 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org> References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org> <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org> <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org> <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org> <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me> <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org> <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org> <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org> <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org> <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:37:37 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="4009709"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5634 Lines: 121 On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>> >>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>> >>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>> for halt decider H. >>>> >>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>> input when directly run. >>>> >>> >>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>> >> >> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >> > > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) > can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior > that you expect. So? There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the Halting Function is just uncomputable. That is a perfectly fine result. > > Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that > they can map their finite string input to. > Nope, you have the issues backwards. They only CAN report on what they can map with a finite algortithm. To be a Halt Decider, they MUST try to compute the defined mapping, which, as you state, can not be done > You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report > on something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. Yep. To be a Halt decider, it must try to compute something that isn't defined by a finite algorithm. Since, it turns out we can actually PROVE that there is no finite algorithm that CAN do it, we can conclude, as the Theorem states, that the Halting Functino is uncomputable. Nothing wrong with that. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > > > >