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: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:50:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vs9t45$2f6n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org>
 <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:50:39 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5a5d73b9c0193d8d0ef7f30f611d28";
	logging-data="1617588"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EK5JwD7+JPuRWFRuSFmEM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wpiQuPNQ4JlLYKlY4U/FiFmy//8=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vsaam4$2sfhq$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6481

Op 30.mrt.2025 om 04:35 schreef olcott:
> On 3/29/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/29/25 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No it isn't, not if it is the definition of a PROGRAM.
>>
> 
> _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]
> 
> The behavior that these machine code bytes specify:
> 558bec6872210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
> as an input to HHH is different than these
> same bytes as input to HHH1 as a verified fact.
> 
>> Or, are you admitting you don't understand the meaning of a program?
>>
> 
> It seems that you "just don't believe in" verified facts.
> 
That completely depends on who has verified it.
If everyone can see that the way in which Olcott verifies his 'facts' is 
only a baseless claim, I do not believe in the verification. In 
particular when he does not fix the errors in the verification that were 
pointed out to him.