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: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:13:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <e166831a8e02332d64ec151f61481e2629e6e53a@i2pn2.org>
 <vrvsh4$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>
 <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 03:13:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8799149c9052e099521fa413fa47d8eb";
	logging-data="112981"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+N4q9QHOjISLNvJssePKfW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pWbPCz/NTvjPo+3RjewH2z66kK0=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <c2b91231b9052e07b6705250938fb9095e711327@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 8846

On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/25 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.
>>
>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a
>> finite string of machine code to the behavior that
>> this finite string specifies.
>>
> 
> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine described 
> when it is actually run.
> 

In other words the halting problem is defined to
not be allowed to use computable functions and it
is this screwball definition that prevents the
halting function from being Turing computable.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========