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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:28:01 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 187
Message-ID: <vs9aj3$1silm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$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>
 <e916bd7901968e2927324d9b75bee493714d6fed@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 18:28:04 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="1985206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3o5Dx+LR2Ov6foX8CWUJu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:avJLEXrQng285uA0qghui4aI9O4=
In-Reply-To: <e916bd7901968e2927324d9b75bee493714d6fed@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10256

On 3/29/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/28/25 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========