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: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:00:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 180
Message-ID: <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vs7qdm$8dae$2@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 05:00:44 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d82829ff2684f0f25de37249bda61e80";
	logging-data="273017"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SY0qwLx1ZafoBdNwSWbDE"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/3EV03oiyyVz5Mjr05wWXW4wfE4=
In-Reply-To: <vs7qdm$8dae$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 9834

On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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
>>> halting function from being Turing computable.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========