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: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 08:21:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <vs3jcv$9lob$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrpfua$2qbhf$2@dont-email.me>
 <211f9a2a284cb2deaa666f424c1ef826fe855e80@i2pn2.org>
 <vrq330$3dq3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <e7268e8ef47579cacb49b0533d51549a77eb0b96@i2pn2.org>
 <vrqb6f$3k9kh$2@dont-email.me>
 <3f250e699762cfe6fccc844f10eb04f32d470b6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrrpcl$11a56$4@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vrt3gv$264jb$4@dont-email.me>
 <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org>
 <vru5tp$38ob9$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$aq8m$3@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$p4vd$2@dont-email.me>
 <c93030bbd81fb313c76c256c6e54beb48b07dfdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vs1vuv$2ot1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <d2f86fad6c5823e3c098f30d331576c52263b398@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2fgn$354gv$5@dont-email.me>
 <61f821b5a18046ab36ddb6c52a003b574cf34de6@i2pn2.org>
 <vs2hnm$38lvq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:21:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5ec36717a83b2c3228b47b91f5e1af86";
	logging-data="317195"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+3+A+p+go1uOtRIVBBNhK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:x1nh817P0w+iZxQKoHVqXLc4us4=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250327-6, 3/27/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9be1ff2af6bbf405565b27bc8211adf9f353e9f2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6012

On 3/27/2025 6:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/26/25 11:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/26/2025 10:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/26/25 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>
>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even 
>>>>> if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do 
>>>>> that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state
>>>> in an unbounded number of steps.
>>>
>>> But DDD emulated by an actually correct emulator will,
>>
>> If you were not intentionally persisting in a lie you
>> would acknowledge the dead obvious that DDD emulated
>> by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
>> cannot possibly correctly reach its final halt state.
> 
> And if you were not intentionally persisting in a lie, you would admit 
> that your HHH doesn't do that, as it stops before it finishes.
> 
>>
>> The behavior that DDD specifies to HHH <is> the behavior
>> that it must report on.
> 
> 
> Which, by the definition, is the behavior of the directly executed DDD, 
> or the completely and correctly emulation of that input, something HHH 
> doesn't do, so HHH doesn't define.
> 
>>
>> Turing computable halt functions are only allowed to
>> report on the behavior that their input specifies.
> 
> There are no Turing Computable Halt Functions.
> 

A halt function is not the same as a halt decider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

A Turing computable function could have its domain
restricted to a single finite string.

> You are just assuming the existance of them, because you live in the 
> land of Make Beleive.
> 

No it is your mistake of not paying close enough
attention to the exact terms that I am using.

> The Halting Problem defines a specific mapping based on the execution of 
> a program,  and provides to the claimed decider a representation of that 
> program, and asks it to tell us if that program, when run, will halt.
> 

This has proven to be flat out incorrect countless times
in many ways. Turing computable functions on a domain
of specific finite string encodings of sequences of moves
reports on the actual behavior that this finite string
actually specifies including recursive emulation when
specified.

> If it can't do that, then it has just failed to meet the requirements.
> 

These requirements are not incorrect. They are anchored in
false assumptions. When any requirement is anchored in
false assumptions this requirement is incorrect.

> You are just trying to insist that you can change the problem so you can 
> make up an answer, thus violation what you say in your next statement 
> below:
> 

HHH(DDD) is not allowed to report on the behavior of
DDD(HHH1) when this differs from the behavior of HHH(DDD).

>>
>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>> sum(5,6) must report the sum of 5+6 and
>> is not allowed to report the sum of 2+3.
>>
> 
> Right, and HHH(DDD) must report on the actual behavior of the directed 
> executed DDD as that is what the question it claims to be answering says.
> 
> Not the behavior of some DDD' that calls a different HHH than what it does,
> 
> Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.


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