Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing computable functions --- EEE(III)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:18:08 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vs19c1$2346o$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vruvsn$3tamc$3@dont-email.me>
 <b30f38e665d23dc01c09381c00edbb015a493508@i2pn2.org>
 <vrv9ed$73q7$3@dont-email.me>
 <f8638b87b68e331708798bac855a4a8f978ee166@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvrji$ncok$2@dont-email.me>
 <3dd145b60c1e8b3556a7ebca835e16b609a8033d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 17:18:10 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="61544cd49926c0716809366eec9fc285";
	logging-data="2199768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HiwbpE8MhrSuWyew/CKDB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MHUthFYXHFyb+NyaJFem2dxP75w=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250326-0, 3/25/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <3dd145b60c1e8b3556a7ebca835e16b609a8033d@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4178

On 3/26/2025 4:46 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:17:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 3/25/2025 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/25/25 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 4:16 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> 
>>>>>> When an input finite string specifies a pathological relationship
>>>>>> with its simulating halt decider the actual behavior that
>>>>>> pathological relationship derives must be reported because THAT IS
>>>>>> THE BEHAVIOR THAT IS SPECIFIED BY THIS INPUT FINITE STRING.
>>>>> The relationship doesn't derive anything.
>>>>> It is a tautology that a simulator reports what it reports. That
>>>>> doesn't make that correct.
>>>> EEE emulates a finite number of steps EEE including EEE emulating
>>>> itself emulating III a finite number of times.

> A partial simulation is not a complete simulation (non-halting
> simulations are infinite).

It is stupid to define a simulating termination that
cannot report non-terminating inputs. Simulating
termination analyzers recognize non-terminating
behavior patterns in a finite number of steps.

>>>> III has different behavior when emulated by any EEE than when it is
>>>> emulated by any other emulator.
>>>> When III is emulated by EEE it never reaches its final halt state.
>>>> When III is emulated by any other emulator it ALWAYS reaches its final
>>>> halt state.
>>>> ALWAYS is the opposite of NEVER.

> Sure looks like EEE is faulty here.
> 

It might if you are totally clueless about the x86 language.

>>> Since you defined that EEE wasn't a UTM, its result is allowed to be
>>> subjective.
>> The same thing works for UTMs too yet they do not have such a concise
>> fully specified language where we can directly see every micro-step of
>> the algorithm.
>>
>>> The behavior of III is, and always is, the behavior of its direct
>>> execution or the complete emulation of it by a REAL UTM, which for ALL
>> You have already said that there is no complete emulation.

Of any non-terminating input.

> Yes, that's the problem.
> 
>>> your EEEs that only emulate a finite number of steps and then return
>>> will always be to HALT.
>> It is the III emulated by the EEEs that never halt.
>>
>>> Note, none of those EEE ever showed the ACTUAL behavior of their input,
>>> as that is BY DEFINITION, the behavior of that emulation by the UTM.
>> The behavior of III is
>>    [00002172]  [00002173]  [00002175]  [0000217a]...
> No, III has no loop. You are confusing different simulation levels.
> 

I have used the term recursive emulation
hundreds of times, did you notice that I
ever said it at least once?

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer