Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:38:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <ac61f679d7ddb39b0ceaedd7f562899d36346535@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvccp$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> <vs2u3v$3mcjm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs434l$mmcb$3@dont-email.me> <vs45a3$resr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4ne1$1c1ja$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ovc$1e09p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs4pg8$1c1ja$6@dont-email.me> <vs4pi9$1e09p$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs4qpp$1c1ja$7@dont-email.me> <vs4r2u$1e09p$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs4snt$1c1ja$9@dont-email.me>
 <e11c6f4f29bb0c77dbd10f8e20bca766712977d0@i2pn2.org>
 <vs50kt$1c1ja$15@dont-email.me> <vs5r0j$2f37e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6srk$39556$12@dont-email.me> <vs6t10$2p360$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs70tc$39556$21@dont-email.me> <vs71bq$2p360$10@dont-email.me>
 <vs76m9$3m3q0$1@dont-email.me> <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:38:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="297ec9b99b90c1a452f27cfdbb15f922";
	logging-data="3895604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZQKv445EKPsW2YuOS+Wo1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iY3WYTL3U2L6jJcjSB//ov/ABqE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs77th$2p360$11@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8165

On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator reports that it is unable to reach the end 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the simulation of a program that halts in direct 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not computing the required mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > In other words you could find any error in my post so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you resort to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > lame tactic of ad hominem personal attack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Troll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wonders*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat
>>>>>>>>>>>> your error like a bot 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of the direct execution of another TM. I proved
>>>>>>>>>> this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs
>>>>>>>>>> IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure they can.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is 
>>>>>>>>> based on?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input
>>>>>>>> and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping
>>>>>>>> from inputs to outputs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* 
>>>>>>> output, it cannot be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain 
>>>>> to a member of the output domain as per the requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It doesn't 
>>>>> matter how it's done.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output
>>>> on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property
>>>> of this input it is not a Turing computable function.
>>>>
>>>> int StringLength(char *S)
>>>> {
>>>>    return 5;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>>
>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an
>> algorithm that derive an output on the basis of
>> an input) jack shit it makes a guess.
>>
> 
> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that have 
> a length of 5, it meets the requirement.

The actual requirement is to compute the mapping
from a finite string to its length using a sequence
of algorithmic steps.

Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a
finite string of machine code to the behavior that
this finite string specifies.

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