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 17:12:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vsf402$1crun$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vsctnm$2ub5m$2@dont-email.me>
 <72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:12:19 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36d3ab42b456229d7015555efad62f36";
	logging-data="1470423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+J8JZgHXnS8GC9WovUruFP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dz11kD+38QbgL8ohux7n6OBIjdA=
In-Reply-To: <72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6342

On 3/31/2025 3:44 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 30 Mar 2025 21:13:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> An input that halts when executed directly is not non-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminating
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> Yes, HHH is off the topic of deciding halting.
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> 
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> What does "specify to" mean? Which behaviour is correct?
> 
>>>>>> DDD EMULATED BY HHH DOES SPECIFY THAT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS
>>>>>> OWN FINAL HALT STATE.
>>>>> How does HHH emulate the call to HHH instruction
>>>> The semantics of the x86 language.
>>> Right, which were defined by INTEL, and requires the data emulated to
>>> be part of the input.
>> It is part of the input in the sense that HHH must emulate itself
>> emulating DDD. HHH it the test program thus not the program-under-test.
> It is part of the program under test, being called by it. That's what
> you call a pathological relationship.
> 
>> HHH is not asking does itself halt?
> Yes it is saying "I can't simulate this".
> 
>> It was encoded to always halt for
>> such inputs. HHH is asking does this input specify that it reaches its
>> own final halt state?
> Which it does (except when simulated by HHH).
> 
>>> Is it guessing based on your limited input that doesn't contain the
>>> code at 000015d2, or
>>> Is it admitting to not being a pure function, by looking outsde the
>>> input to the function (since you say that above is the full input), or
>>> Are you admitting all of Halt7.c/obj as part of the input, and thus you
>>> hae a FIXED definition of HHH, which thus NEVER does a complete
>>> emulation, and thus you can't say that the call to HHH is a complete
>>> emulation.
>>>
>>>> How we we determine that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its
>>>> final halt state?
>>>> Two recursive emulations provide correct inductive proof.
>>> Nope, because if you admit to the first two lies, your HHH never was a
>>> valid decider,

It is ALWAYS CORRECT for any simulating termination
analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input
that would otherwise prevent its own termination.


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