Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 18:59:07 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 186 Message-ID: <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me> References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vsbi7e$1hblk$1@dont-email.me> <vsc6qi$27lbo$2@dont-email.me> <8a3e7e93e6cad20b29d23405a0e6dbd497a492ac@i2pn2.org> <vscegq$2fv3s$2@dont-email.me> <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 01:59:08 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c3e41e7cd06e5848bcc8c57c53d2c68"; logging-data="2855532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19YjwbSSDTDWJzFSYZq4yrr" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hsA0GEnto3xoYNo1naNVd2+TaqY= In-Reply-To: <26f33bb039fda7d28ae164cfc4d0f582d4698f31@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250330-6, 3/30/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 9455 On 3/30/2025 5:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/30/25 5:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/30/2025 4:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/30/25 3:42 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/30/2025 8:50 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> No it does not. That is a stupid thing to say. >>>> Every verified fact IS TRUE BY DEFINITION. >>> >>> No, if the verifiers lies, then his "verification" isn't valid. >>> >> >> That is not the way semantic tautology works. >> If the father of lies says that cats are animals >> then cats are still animals. >> >>> Or, do you accept the verification by the election deniers that show >>> that there was the possibility of the fraud, >>> >> >> There is a possibility that five minutes ago never existed. >> Claiming that there was fraud when you know there was no >> evidence of fraud might get you eternally incinerated. >> >>> A guess you have to or you are admitting yourself to be a hypocrite. >>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> My claims are verified as true entirely on the basis >>>> of the meaning of their words. >>>> >>> >>> Nope, it is proved incorrect by the ACTUAL meaning of the words you >>> use, but then you LIE to yourself about what those words mean. >> >> > >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========