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 19:59:55 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 257
Message-ID: <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@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 02:59:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="241bb90de42b8ffb9e02315e4a6e8219";
	logging-data="1778523"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+hAsdqpBVRNElFO5DoHIbd"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sXvZKtmXYHxVK1TUtqEtlId1l84=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 13576

On 3/31/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/31/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/31/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/31/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========