Path: 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 21:12:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <vsfi2t$1r8rb$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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> <vsfg3q$1l8n5$3@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 04:12:53 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5ed314de766e2c5f0206a803d6d07134";
	logging-data="1942379"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fFoK5WSWcJvqve31keWIn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ySpq7JdTeAkr/LCj2R1F1/Gcc08=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250331-6, 3/31/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vsfg3q$1l8n5$3@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 3/31/2025 8:39 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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.
>>
> 
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========