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 ---
 STA
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:10:41 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 235
Message-ID: <vsepbh$11dqg$1@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> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:10:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dfe2e50bf42e44eff2c75c1fa6d643cc";
	logging-data="1095504"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zBMK7pH6VzrR1uNksToPD"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BlH2VNGuqOD8cADW0JUhSfFWvtc=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12452

Op 31.mrt.2025 om 20:16 schreef olcott:
> On 3/31/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:
>>> 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 ==========