Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 17:30:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <vsf520$1crun$5@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>
 <72d003704b5bacf77110750e8c973d62869ad204@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf402$1crun$4@dont-email.me> <vsf49v$1adee$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:30:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="36d3ab42b456229d7015555efad62f36";
	logging-data="1470423"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18MeEoCCA9hHasq+SqyNDVi"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FJmRlB+/+hkDT9MTTGHdQngMsfE=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vsf49v$1adee$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6828

On 3/31/2025 5:17 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> Except when doing so changes the input, as is the case with HHH and DDD.
> 
> Changing the input is not allowed.

I have already addressed your misconception that the input is changed.

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