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: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 19:11:49 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4qfrl$a0nm$3@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4j0h2$39gh7$3@dont-email.me> <v4k0sr$3f4m3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4k44j$3fmth$1@dont-email.me> <v4m5gj$3v41v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4mmnp$1qt6$2@dont-email.me> <v4ms37$5nh5$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v4mtif$3cbf$1@dont-email.me> <v4muph$1sav$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4n8ac$5d22$1@dont-email.me> <v4nk4s$17k4$1@news.muc.de>
 <v4nn63$89ld$1@dont-email.me> <v4noi2$8am2$5@dont-email.me>
 <v4nsas$61l9$10@i2pn2.org> <v4pd11$ln46$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:11:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="328438"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4pd11$ln46$10@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3738
Lines: 60

On 6/17/24 9:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2024 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/16/24 6:21 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 16/06/2024 à 23:58, André G. Isaak a écrit :
>>>> On 2024-06-16 15:06, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you'd've simply stuck to turing machines all along, you could have
>>>>> avoided a lot of the confusion you've got yourself into.  Why not 
>>>>> start
>>>>> talking about turing machines now?
>>>>
>>>> Olcott has made it clear that he has absolutely no idea what Turing 
>>>> Machines are or how they work. He likes bringing them up (even 
>>>> insisting on calling his C programs "TMs" or "UTMs"), but there's no 
>>>> possibility that he will start discussing actual Turing machines. 
>>>> They're entirely outside of his purview.
>>>>
>>>> André
>>>>
>>>
>>> A couple of years ago he was asked to provide Turing Machine emulator in
>>> C. He bragged about delivering it in a few hours (which is realisting
>>> for any decent programmer btw).
>>>
>>> Guess what? He failed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually, if I remember right, he was asked to write a Turing Machine, 
>> and was shown an on-line Turing Emulator, but he didn't like how it 
>> worked, (it didn't understand a "full ASCII" tape) so he desided to 
>> write his own, and failed.
>>
>> Yes, a few hours is probably a reasonable design time for a simple 
>> "batch mode" Turing machine emultor (read a data file with the State 
>> Machine description and the starting tape, and then print a trace of 
>> it running, maybe including a simple loop detector to stop the 
>> obviously non-halting machines.
>>
>> Of course, fancy graphics could make it a bottomless pit.
>>
>> I likely wouldn't choose C to do it in, but it is do able.
>>
>> (A RASP emulator would want a language with bignum support, but that 
>> isn't needed for a Turing Machine.
> 
> The x86 language <is> essentially a RASP machine for
> every computation that fits within its memory.
> 

Nope. There are a lot of simularities, but they are no ways essentially 
the same.

a RASP machine has only TWO registers, the Program Counter and a single 
accumulator. It has one memory addressing mode, Absolute.

This makes the details of a RASP program VERY different from an x86 with 
its multiple general purpose registers and indexing capability.

You only think they are similar because it has "Random Access" to its 
memory.