Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 21:03:09 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 162
Message-ID: <vsfe0c$1l8n5$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$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>
 <vsf520$1crun$5@dont-email.me> <vsf6fp$1adee$2@dont-email.me>
 <vsf8pp$1i673$1@dont-email.me> <vsfbp9$1l8n5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsfdji$1m8qr$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 03:03:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43a1f663b1fe04e5f0ee05272f138407";
	logging-data="1745637"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX199DAQyFRcjBfJxmBbKBnRL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:f1zXOFjxretfy4oZmmVOaBeodQ4=
In-Reply-To: <vsfdji$1m8qr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8986

On 3/31/2025 8:56 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 7:25 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/31/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/2025 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it is YOUR misconception.  The algorithm DDD consists of the 
>>>> function DDD, the function HHH, and everything that HHH calls down 
>>>> to the OS level.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have already been over this.
>>> HHH(DDD) and HHH1(DDD) have the same inputs all the way
>>> down to the OS level. 
>>
>> So you agree that the input to both is the immutable code of the 
>> function DDD, the immutable code of the function HHH, and the 
>> immutable code of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level.
>>
> 
> It is the input in terms of the behavior of DDD emulated
> by HHH, yet only DDD is the program-under-test.

False.  The function DDD by itself is not a program.  The function DDD, 
the function HHH, and everything that HHH calls down the OS level are 
*all* under test.

> 
>> Which means it is strictly forbidden to have or hypothesize different 
>> implementations for any of them.
>>
>> And when that complete immutable code is executed by the semantics of 
>> the x86 programming language, it will halt.
> 
> The input to HHH(DDD) 

i.e. a representation of the algorithm DDD: the function DDD, the 
function HHH, and everything that HHH calls down the OS level.

> cannot possibly halt
> and the exact same input to HHH1(DDD) halts
> because 

False.  The fixed code of HHH aborts its emulation of DDD too soon, as 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========