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 22:45:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 174
Message-ID: <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <vs7kvf$3eal$2@dont-email.me>
 <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@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 04:45:59 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4a11f9a4e0695b58a3441997222f2fae";
	logging-data="275790"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/9rYyuLMulxMfPc7jgHe8z"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QxWeAgy9uFhv3z1mtScTueDvNss=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <aeb75b411e9f77c974585181c671a47d03b22078@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9496

On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========