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 21:54:15 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 153
Message-ID: <vs7js7$3s6vh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <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> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs5qd1$2buf0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs6sg2$39556$10@dont-email.me> <vs6sq7$2p360$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs6trs$39556$15@dont-email.me> <vs6u9d$2p360$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:54:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d82829ff2684f0f25de37249bda61e80";
	logging-data="4070385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+Uf8JvkwzKzwTTfrPDjym"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wa7UCO+VHdtlTFO25pedbiCmKqQ=
In-Reply-To: <vs6u9d$2p360$8@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8186

On 3/28/2025 3:45 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/28/2025 2:20 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2025 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:33 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 02:21 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 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. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on
>>>>>> behavior that matches the behavior of a directly
>>>>>> executing TM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No TM can every directly see the behavior of the
>>>>>> direct execution of any other TM because no TM can
>>>>>> take a directly executing TM as an input.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So we agree that the answer for:
>>>>> 'Is there an algorithm that can determine for all possible inputs 
>>>>> whether the input specifies a program that (according to the 
>>>>> semantics of the machine language) halts when directly executed?'
>>>>> is 'no'. Correct?
>>>>
>>>> In the same way: Is there an algorithm that correctly
>>>> determines the square root of a box of rocks?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, you're saying that there's a TM/input where the 
>>> question of whether or not it halts when executed directly has no 
>>> correct yes or no answer.
>>>
>>> Show it.
>>>
>>
>> I proved it many times and because you are a Troll you
>> ignored the proof that by definition no TM can take
>> an executing TM as its input, thus cannot possibly
>> report on something that it does not see.
> 
> You have shown no such machine that neither halts nor doesn't halt when 
> executed directly.
> 
>>
>>> Failure to do so in your next message is your on-the-record admission 
>>> that the above question is valid.
>>
>> When include ALL of the relevant details to the question
>> it becomes:
>>
>> What Boolean value can decider H correctly return when input
>> D is able to do the opposite of whatever value that H returns?
>>
>> We can reject this question entirely when we discard its
>> false assumption. 
> 
> 
> And that false assumption is that an H exists that behaves as specified 
> below, proving Linz:
> 
> 
> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X 
> described as <X> with input Y:
> 
> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
> following mapping:
> 
> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
> 


I'll take your lack of response to the above that you agree that the 
false assumption to be discarded is that an H exists that behaves as 
specified above, which is exactly what the Linz proof states, and that 
you therefore agree that the Linz halting theorem and proof are correct.