Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:52:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <vueisg$2luer$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me>
 <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4> <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me> <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me> <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de>
 <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me> <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me> <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me> <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de>
 <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me> <vu8cgm$2p5e$1@news.muc.de>
 <vu8gml$v0qa$2@dont-email.me> <vu8m2h$vn9b$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8pr1$13jl5$8@dont-email.me> <vu8qo3$vn9b$4@dont-email.me>
 <vu8ruc$13jl5$12@dont-email.me> <vuaaae$2lbp9$2@dont-email.me>
 <zIWdnaZKufSzmpT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vub1go$3clpn$3@dont-email.me>
 <HcWcnf7heZkdG5T1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vucbg5$mukj$1@dont-email.me> <vucbrv$mukj$2@dont-email.me>
 <b76c7dc89655dcc3f3fb52dee18a2d30f82f6166@i2pn2.org>
 <vue9t9$2d7t8$6@dont-email.me>
 <7e071b34937fe58e9523ac4be56ece689b1248ae@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 01:52:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="300926f27b5919fc39f09bdee60cc0b3";
	logging-data="2816475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/1Kd2VgvnAFqM5/3VGQZ+I"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pcf43iKRrk1tPcjpjI2FTQFGUcE=
In-Reply-To: <7e071b34937fe58e9523ac4be56ece689b1248ae@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250424-14, 4/24/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7296

On 4/24/2025 6:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/25 5:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2025 5:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/23/25 11:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/2025 7:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/04/2025 16:38, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/23/2025 10:28 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 23/04/2025 10:02, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:50 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:14 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 1:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:38 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Turing Machines inputs <are> finite strings, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules <are> applied to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these finite strings to derive corresponding outputs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And it has been proven that no finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformations are possible that report the halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour for all inputs that specify a correct program. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only when people stupid assume the same thing as
>>>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) should return the sum of 5 + 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore HHH should report on the actual input, the finite 
>>>>>>>>>>> string that describes a halting program. Not on the 
>>>>>>>>>>> hypothetical input that does not halt, because it is based on 
>>>>>>>>>>> a hypothetical HHH that does not abort.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you maintain that HHH should process the hypothetical 
>>>>>>>>>>> input instead of the actual input.
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that 3+2 equals 5+3?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD
>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>>>>>>>> x86 language have a different set of state changes
>>>>>>>>>> many hundreds of times for several years.
>>>>>>>>> You never showed a proof. You only repeated a dream. You are 
>>>>>>>>> dreaming many years without any logic. You failed to show the 
>>>>>>>>> first state change where the direct execution is different from 
>>>>>>>>> the simulation. You only showed an erroneous HHH that fails to 
>>>>>>>>> reach the end of the simulation of a halting program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Worse than this, on more than one occasion I've actually posted 
>>>>>>>> traces of computation DDD(DDD) executed directly and simulated 
>>>>>>>> by HHH side by side.  Both traces were of course /identical/, up 
>>>>>>>> to the point where HHH stops simulating. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Factually incorrect* (You are usually very careful about these 
>>>>>>> things)
>>>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns.
>>>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...because HHH stops simulating before reaching that step in the 
>>>>>> computation.  Note that I said
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MT:  Both traces were of course /identical/,
>>>>>>       *up to the point where HHH stops simulating*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I was factually correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It *is not* up to the point where HHH stops simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is up to the point where the simulated versus directly
>>>>> executed calls HHH(DD).
>>>>>
>>>>> This call immediately from the directly executed DD and
>>>>> cannot possibility return from DD emulated by HHH according
>>>>> to the finite string transformation rules of the x86 language.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the finite string transformation rules of the x86 
>>>> language.
>>>> The call from the directly executed DD to HHH(DD) immediately returns.
>>>> The call from DD emulated by HHH to HHH(DD) cannot possibility return.
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the rules of the x86 language, your provided input is 
>>> invalid as it references code outside the input. PERIOD.
>>>
>>
>> *Repetition seems to help you overcome your ADD*
>>
>> I have told you that the whole Halt.obj is in scope
>> for every function in Halt.c several times now.
>>
> 
> And thus there is only every that ONE HHH, so HHH *NEVER* correctly 
> emulates it input, 

*At least you will quit STUPIDLY saying that HHH is undefined*
*At least you will quit STUPIDLY saying that HHH is undefined*
*At least you will quit STUPIDLY saying that HHH is undefined*
*At least you will quit STUPIDLY saying that HHH is undefined*
*At least you will quit STUPIDLY saying that HHH is undefined*



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer