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 ---
 STA
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:49:25 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 284
Message-ID: <vsitml$1dlrd$1@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>
 <4285ea3219a2d5f2d6c52e84697fa4e3d3dc80cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vsd18m$379dn$1@dont-email.me> <vsdjff$3o5ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsem50$th5g$3@dont-email.me>
 <77c20f5832db4b47f5226dcb39bd2be7ba107a0c@i2pn2.org>
 <vsf8tv$1i673$2@dont-email.me>
 <5cb726749c8a7457af5da692f77c6a04bc0c7401@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfdqb$1m8qr$2@dont-email.me>
 <733db53c4b67cf1fbbd45fdf503b1d27539b7414@i2pn2.org>
 <vsfigf$1r8rb$2@dont-email.me> <vsge12$2qtmo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsht4p$90ss$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 10:49:26 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a8fba438458277864f9bba295b93c4f3";
	logging-data="1496941"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19p9zhe/Mll/3W32SrGZsqB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kMkGwBEZzqgMFqLO8FrkiYJrIVE=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vsht4p$90ss$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 15721

Op 02.apr.2025 om 01:33 schreef olcott:
> On 4/1/2025 5:09 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 01.apr.2025 om 04:19 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/31/2025 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/31/25 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 7:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/31/25 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 5:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 31.mrt.2025 om 05:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/30/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of a Turing Machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual running TM, only mapping 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of the TM described. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The key fact that you continue to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonestly ignore
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the concrete counter-example that I 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that the finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string of machine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code input is not always a valid proxy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the underlying virtual machine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a UTM, which can take a description of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any Turing machine and exactly reproduce 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior of the direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I deny that a pathological relationship 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between a UTM and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input can be correctly ignored.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither will the input when executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulates a finite number of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) then you no longer have a UTM, so 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements about a UTM don't apply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can know that when this adapted UTM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite number of steps of its input that this 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps were simulated correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And therefore does not do a correct UTM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation that matches the behavior of the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> direct execution as it is incomplete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is dishonest to expect non-terminating 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs to complete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An input that halts when executed directly is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not non- terminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input is unchanged. There never was any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the input was in any way 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, if the starting function calls UTM and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM changes, you're changing the input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, are you admitting you don't understand the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of a program?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you "just don't believe in" verified 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That completely depends on who has verified it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not. That is a stupid thing to say.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========