Path: 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 21:13:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 224
Message-ID: <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <vsclsb$2n4jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@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 04:13:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c3e41e7cd06e5848bcc8c57c53d2c68";
	logging-data="3091638"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/lEdXm2t9grlZDY2Zn6F54"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8iQZVCTgHqnoRHmlQv445y+K+UA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250330-6, 3/30/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <36a4c76730b23cf78ddde73c723116b5380973a1@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/30/2025 7:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/30/25 7:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>  >
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========