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 21:39:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 188
Message-ID: <vsfg3q$1l8n5$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vsfe0c$1l8n5$2@dont-email.me>
 <vsffcj$1m8qr$5@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 03:39:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43a1f663b1fe04e5f0ee05272f138407";
	logging-data="1745637"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yLJxqoPugz+Ls+cbBYLNB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D5pD5Y/PORzEo+JkyWN1JqVwJ48=
In-Reply-To: <vsffcj$1m8qr$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10002

On 3/31/2025 9:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 8:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> *Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
> It is always correct for any simulating termination
> analyzer to stop simulating and reject any input
> that would otherwise prevent its own termination.
> 


Repeat of previously refuted point:

On 3/31/2025 6:17 PM, dbush wrote:
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========