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 ---
 STA
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 16:26:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 240
Message-ID: <vsf1b2$1a4fc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vsepbh$11dqg$1@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 23:26:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c28e4cc080dfc11b0280523184bada2";
	logging-data="1380844"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Lqnu66i4vp8YjG6bmCAEl"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mv9K/GZ/+ImpyH2emY8ZAGItdDg=
In-Reply-To: <vsepbh$11dqg$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 12757

On 3/31/2025 2:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========