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 13:41:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 230
Message-ID: <vsenlh$th5g$8@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbdb2db17901c2b844d8f8f32cb14a1180adebf3@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 20:41:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="68fa68df0c7e701292a0536bcb59f4c8";
	logging-data="967856"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18VRuD5JkbK1zcJDqHjjuQZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:anjSllutnBFetice4CIXJwLR7jA=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <cbdb2db17901c2b844d8f8f32cb14a1180adebf3@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 12059

On 3/31/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/30/25 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/30/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/30/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========