Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vselvf$th5g$2@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: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:13:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <vselvf$th5g$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <3ade9e84224ba9b99c7363e0e9b69181804b7daa@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc2fd$1vihj$2@dont-email.me>
 <e1da7d564873d36f88e119fbbbdafd8c6b0f675e@i2pn2.org>
 <vsc9o7$2bk3d$2@dont-email.me> <vsdjis$3o5ff$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 20:13:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="68fa68df0c7e701292a0536bcb59f4c8";
	logging-data="967856"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8g5nx9iO3CkD5vfuChYDB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0h6K+kcVGsDZwq/4kWDLmefvS4E=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vsdjis$3o5ff$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 5426

On 3/31/2025 3:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 30.mrt.2025 om 22:32 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/30/2025 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/30/25 2:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2025 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:46:26 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> A complete simulation of a nonterminating input doesn't halt.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> So not an UTM.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and input D calls UTM1 then the behavior of D simulated
>>>>>> by UTM1 never reaches its final halt state.
>>>>>> When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call Then D 
>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>> its final halt state.
>>>>> Doesn't matter if it calls it, but if the UTM halts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> You changed UTM1, which is part of the input D.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UTM1 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>> simulated D NEVER reaches final halt state
>>>>
>>>> UTM2 simulates D that calls UTM1
>>>> simulated D ALWAYS reaches final halt state
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only because UTM1 isn't actually a UTM, but a LIE since it only does 
>>> a partial simulation, not a complete as REQURIED by the definition of 
>>> a UTM.
>>>
>>
>> _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]
>>
>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT
>> CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>
>> THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS AND ANYONE THAT DISAGREES
>> IS A DAMNED LIAR OR STUPID.
>>
> But we all agree that HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation of 
> this finite recursion. An end that exists as proven by direct execution 
> and world class simulators. Why repeating this agreement as if someone 
> denies it?

If you want me to respond to any other your replies
you have to quit playing trollish head games.

HHH DOES NOT FAIL YOU KNOWINGLY LIE ABOUT THIS !!!

Because DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
DDD EMULATED BY HHH CANNOT POSSIIBLY HALT.

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