Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 16:10:07 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 148
Message-ID: <vsgs40$38ll1$3@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>
 <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>
 <055406df220b04f40794c0fb01d352c939c702c0@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdva$1m8qr$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 16:10:08 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="de5c9c9726e75e459a4388e583c957c9";
	logging-data="3430049"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19GSXEnHUcwfBXXUqj4zMeq"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bsnP/qsNsAmr3wJw6m8WsHNfqLU=
In-Reply-To: <vsfdva$1m8qr$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 8545

Op 01.apr.2025 om 03:02 schreef olcott:
> On 3/31/2025 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/31/25 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. The ONLY difference is that DDD
>>> does not call HHH1(DDD) in recursive emulation.
>>>
>>
>> So?
>>
>> What difference does that make that the actual instruction level?
>>
>> What instruction behaved differently, at the processor level as 
>> defined by INTEL, between the two paths.
>>
> 
> HHH emulates itself emulating DDD and HHH1 does not
> emulate itself emulating DDD because DDD calls HHH(DDD)
> in recursive emulation and does not call HHH1 at all.
That is not an answer. Which instruction was simulated differently by 
HHH1 and HHH? You don't dare to show it, because it is the instruction 
that uses hidden inputs: the addresses of HHH, resp. HHH1.