Path: ...!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: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Computable_Functions_---_finite_string_transformati?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?on_rules_---_0_=E2=89=A01?=
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:58:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vuej7d$2md4c$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me>
 <a8ab995b650b894cbfb635478f7406c4eee4d187@i2pn2.org>
 <vthqtc$5g2e$2@dont-email.me>
 <63af93cb608258cc3e12b9bab3a2efa0b7ee7eee@i2pn2.org>
 <vtit6a$15e5s$3@dont-email.me> <vtivmo$19aqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkc4l$2h48g$3@dont-email.me> <vtkdnm$2iqu5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtkkge$2si58$2@dont-email.me> <vtl56j$3aajg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtlu0a$3vgp0$1@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2ad5086dba36124c070173c3e3252967df2fab9@i2pn2.org>
 <vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me> <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <bf0ee557f7c0eba386944a4551e607895c620d44@i2pn2.org>
 <vue9im$2d7t8$5@dont-email.me>
 <09bba11868dafecb6800ba8aec152304fec97553@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 01:58:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="39160e770cd8a33e2f9b3fd49f54870c";
	logging-data="2831500"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Wzce96Y9KQUgoRe+bqMcR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3OM3RVsefkQBp5IwDN+WjQpNVa4=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250424-14, 4/24/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <09bba11868dafecb6800ba8aec152304fec97553@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5671

On 4/24/2025 6:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/24/25 5:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/24/2025 5:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/23/25 11:22 PM, polcott333 wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2025 9:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/23/25 11:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/23/2025 6:25 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:51:48 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 1:07 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:28 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) 
>>>>>>>>>>>> {return x
>>>>>>>>>>>> + y; }
>>>>>>>>>>>> returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand 
>>>>>>>>>>>> how these
>>>>>>>>>>>> things fundamentally work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>> this direct execution.
>>>>>>>>>>> What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its 
>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key thing here is that Olcott consistently does not 
>>>>>>>>> understand that
>>>>>>>>> HHH is given a finite string input that according to the 
>>>>>>>>> semantics of
>>>>>>>>> the x86 language specifies a halting program,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is stupidly incorrect.
>>>>>>> No, DD halts (when executed directly). HHH is not a halt decider, 
>>>>>>> not even
>>>>>>> for DD only.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> People here stupidly assume that the outputs are not required to
>>>>>>>> correspond to the inputs.
>>>>>>> But the direct execution of DD is computable from its description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not as an input to HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>> But neither the "direct execution" or the "simulation by HHH" are 
>>>>> "inputs" to HHH. What is the input is the representation of the 
>>>>> program to be decided on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When HHH computes halting for DD is is only allowed
>>>>>> to apply the finite string transformations specified
>>>>>> by the x86 language to the machine code of DD.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is only ABLE to apply them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The input to HHH(DD) does specify the recursive emulation
>>>> of DD including HHH emulating itself emulating DD when
>>>> one applies the finite string transformation rules of the
>>>> x86 language to THE INPUT to HHH(DD).
>>>
>>> Yes, the input specifies FINITE recusive PARTIAL emulation, as the 
>>> HHH that DD calls will emulate only a few instructions of DD and then 
>>> return,
>>>
>>
>> *You are technically incompetent on this point*
>> When the finite string transformation rules of the
>> x86 language are applied to the input to HHH(DD)
>> THIS DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS FINAL HALT STATE
>> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
> 
> Sure it does, just after the point that HHH gives up on those 
> transformation and aborts its (now incorrect) emulation of the input.
> 

THAT IS COUNTER FACTUAL !!!

The directly executed DD has zero recursive invocations.
DD emulated by HHH has one recursive invocation.

Did you know that zero does not equal one?

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