Path: ...!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 14:37:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vs9em1$20g2j$1@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> <vs4srl$1e09p$4@dont-email.me>
 <vs4tj3$1c1ja$11@dont-email.me> <vs4tot$1e09p$5@dont-email.me>
 <vs50dt$1c1ja$13@dont-email.me> <vs51po$1e09p$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs6nv4$39556$1@dont-email.me> <vs6or0$2p360$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs6rnk$39556$7@dont-email.me> <vs6sjv$2p360$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs6t79$39556$13@dont-email.me>
 <45b3405a167984b8649777fdc0804b124b21e19b@i2pn2.org>
 <vs9dcd$1v2n9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:37:54 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d82829ff2684f0f25de37249bda61e80";
	logging-data="2113619"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oeVWfP8q1MwBh2Kwg5N5F"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NnPlM/2i3uRodm4RdsPTO1eVpr4=
In-Reply-To: <vs9dcd$1v2n9$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4440

On 3/29/2025 2:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 4:31 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:27:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/28/2025 2:17 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the
>>>>>>>>>> halting problem:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description D
>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior correctly
>>>>>>>>> simulated by UTM2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior of
>>>>>>>> the described machine when executed directly must be reported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
>> According to what? WE require it. YOU are answering a different question.
>>
>>>>>> Category error.
>>>>>> I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt
>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing TM as its
>>>>> input.
>> Quit that.
>>
>>>> But it can take a complete description of a TM that
>>>
>>> Is not always a perfect proxy for the behavior of the direct execution
>>> of the underlying machine.
> 
>> Uh yes it is.
>>
> 
> That my proof that I am correct
> is over your head is less than
> no rebuttal what-so-ever.

The fact that such TM description can be given to a UTM which will 
exactly replicate the behavior of the described TM when executed 
directly proves otherwise is apparently over your head.

> 
>>> I have proven this hundreds and hundreds of times over several years.
>>> PATHOLOGICAL SELF-REFERENCE CANNOT SIMPLY BE IGNORED. IT IS EITHER
>>> MORONIC OR DISHONEST TO DO SO.
>> Simulation by the called simulator is not direct execution.
>>
> 
> The behavior OF THE INPUT 

i.e. a complete description of a TM

> is specified by THIS INPUT
> being 

Directly executed

> according to the semantics of
> the x86 language.
>