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 22:48:34 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 251
Message-ID: <vsfk61$1l8n5$5@dont-email.me>
References: <vrfuob$256og$1@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>
 <vsfi2t$1r8rb$1@dont-email.me> <vsfisi$1l8n5$4@dont-email.me>
 <vsfjj1$1s8b0$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 04:48:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="43a1f663b1fe04e5f0ee05272f138407";
	logging-data="1745637"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HdyIPOHgyqLtecuxfKcAH"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:g87r8tecG1XyasH+BImop8UW2L0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsfjj1$1s8b0$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 12346

On 3/31/2025 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/31/2025 9:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/31/2025 10:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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 ==========