Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:47:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 155
Message-ID: <vs78um$2p360$12@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <vrvccp$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>
 <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@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 23:47:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="03fe113b48149dc853aaf379e67b2ca8";
	logging-data="2919616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/04BgWzKnuBYmwhH+/yx6n"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:khVlS7o6r8AusgwrXePpHrmp95s=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs78cu$3ms9k$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8330

On 3/28/2025 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

And if the input is a string of length 5, then returning 5 is always 
correct.  The implementation doesn't matter.

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

And if the input is a description of a TM that halts when executed 
directly, then returning 1 is always correct regardless of the 
implementation.