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 18:08:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <vs9r1b$28tqg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs92l3$1fccq$5@dont-email.me> <vs93ae$1k9u2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs9g5p$1v2n9$5@dont-email.me> <vs9gcg$20g2j$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs9h9o$23cav$2@dont-email.me> <vs9hh3$20g2j$6@dont-email.me>
 <vs9jie$23cav$4@dont-email.me> <vs9kb1$26cg5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs9pni$27rl4$9@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 23:08:43 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d82829ff2684f0f25de37249bda61e80";
	logging-data="2389840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18D4/eY6msoQaPER7DIsIHp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BnKP2BXYI17cEnfwd/vEx+S2KKU=
In-Reply-To: <vs9pni$27rl4$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5062

On 3/29/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2025 2:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of a Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only 
>>>>>>>>>> mapping properties of the TM described. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore
>>>>>>>>> is the concrete counter-example that I provided that
>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that the finite string of machine
>>>>>>>>> code input is not always a valid proxy for the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of the underlying virtual machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a 
>>>>>>>> description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the 
>>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and
>>>>>>> its input can be correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and neither will the input 
>>>>>> when executed directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it
>>>>> correctly simulates a finite number of steps of an
>>>>> input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) then you no longer have a UTM, so statements about a UTM don't apply
>>>
>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a
>>> finite number of steps of its input that this finite
>>> number of steps were simulated correctly.
>>
>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that matches the 
>> behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete.
>>
> 
> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete.

An input that halts when executed directly is not non-terminating

> 
>>>
>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed
>>>
>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any
>>> indication that the input was in any way changed.
>>>
>>
>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're 
>> changing the input.
>>
> 
> When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate
> a finite number of steps 

And is therefore no longer a UTM that does a correct and complete simulation

> and input D calls UTM1 then the
> behavior of D simulated by UTM1 


Is not what I asked about.  I asked about the behavior of D when 
executed directly.

> 
> When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call
> Then D reaches its final halt state.
> 

Demonstrating that UTM1 is wrong.

>> Changing the input is not allowed.
> I never changed the input. D always calls UTM1.
> thus is the same input to UTM1 as it is to UTM2.
>