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 17:44:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vs9r1b$28tqg$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 23:44:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8";
	logging-data="2595557"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FEHQ0FgQrTU96ODedVCZl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RjijW9pdB1q0sNh9lBKPl6uYVGQ=
In-Reply-To: <vs9r1b$28tqg$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message
Bytes: 5238

On 3/29/2025 5:08 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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.
> 

Off topic for this thread.
UTM1 D DOES NOT HALT
UTM2 D HALTS
D is the same finite string in both cases.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer