Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:59:58 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <vs8cqd$sd2j$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me>
 <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org>
 <vrt3gv$264jb$4@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> <vs5qge$2buf0$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs6sj2$39556$11@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 09:59:58 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13640222a42b83ce918b512af2679e23";
	logging-data="930899"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ncArerqVn3ujCa32TIB0Y"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:30jsMxWEWHoEUWKD4yB0eTUbDTM=
In-Reply-To: <vs6sj2$39556$11@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 6942

Op 28.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:
> On 3/28/2025 4:35 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.
>>>
>>> The best that any TM can ever do to see what
>>> the behavior of another TM might be is to simulate
>>> the machine code (TM description) of this machine.
>>>
>>> When this input defines a pathological relationship
>>> with its simulating half decider this does prevent
>>> this simulated machine from reaching its final halt state.
>>>
>>
>> When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a 
>> pathological relation with the problem. 
> 
> The halt decider has always been correct it is the
> input that cheats.
> 

It has been proven thousand times that it is incorrect.
Simply repeating false claims is not a proof of any value.
The input does not cheat. Finite strings do not cheat. A finite string 
that specifies a program does not cheat. Programs do not cheat. Programs 
have behaviour. Programs halt or do not halt.
HHH is simply the wrong tool to determine that behaviour. HHH can only 
report that it could not reach the end of the program described by the 
finite string, where direct execution and world class simulators have no 
problem to reach this end when given exactly the same finite string.
The semantics of the x86 language fully specifies the behaviour of the 
program, independent of what will look at it.