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: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 13:05:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <vulrl4$1bf1j$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> <vufi61$3k099$1@dont-email.me>
 <vugddv$b21g$2@dont-email.me>
 <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org>
 <vugvr3$pke9$8@dont-email.me>
 <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj18i$2lf64$6@dont-email.me>
 <f0d3f2e87d9a4e0b0f445f60a33d529f41a4fcf7@i2pn2.org>
 <vuj55m$2lf64$10@dont-email.me> <vuj8h3$2uahf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vujfuu$35hcg$1@dont-email.me>
 <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org>
 <vujlj0$3a526$1@dont-email.me> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me> <vuju4o$3hnda$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:05:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5019efe4d0d5f225206792de93e35a";
	logging-data="1424435"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+rxBmVi5tPTpg5O7UcGuD3"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:d4//wiUNUrU/JS3fuqgzFs6YOwE=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vuju4o$3hnda$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 9839

On 4/26/2025 7:35 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 8:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 1:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 12:16 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions are 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derived their outputs by applying finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on is completely proven.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Youy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms of finite string operations. The problem they 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve do not need to be based on that, but on just 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general mappings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings to finite strings that might not be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite algorithm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorith of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation steps to make that mapping.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string operations that can be applied 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are, the operations that the processor executes. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How did you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it works?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to actually show the actual steps instead of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> being stuck in
>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL!
>>>>>>>>>>> Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when deriving a 
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>> state from the string description of DD?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string 
>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation
>>>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language (the line of demarcation 
>>>>>>>>>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can possibly 
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state and halt.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, where is that line?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out
>>>>>>>>>> which rules are violated because they already
>>>>>>>>>> know that HHH does not violate any rules and
>>>>>>>>>> they are only playing trollish head games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the finite
>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language
>>>>>>>>>> does emulate [00002133] through [0000213c] which
>>>>>>>>>> causes HHH to emulate itself emulating DD again
>>>>>>>>>> in recursive emulation repeating the cycle of
>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] through [0000213c].
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finite recursion, 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by
>>>>>>>> any HHH that applies finite string transformation
>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to its input
>>>>>>>> no DD can possibly reach its final halt state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, as you can't have an infinte series of a function 
>>>>>>> that has been defined to be a specific instance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One recursive emulation of HHH emulating itself emulating
>>>>>> DD after DD has already been emulated by DD once conclusively
>>>>>> proves that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> simulated DD would never stop running unless aborted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its *simulated D would never*
>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted* then
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 
>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it 
>>>>> has been proven that he doesn't:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>  > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with 
>>>>> anything
>>>>>  > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have
>>>>>  > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to 
>>>>> me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to
>>>> understand the significance of what he agreed to
>>>> does not entail that he did not agree with my
>>>> meanings of what he agreed to.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to
>>>> understand the notion of recursive emulation.
>>>> Without this it is impossible to see the significance
>>>> of my work.
>>>
>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, and 
>>> your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying.
>>>
>>
>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words*
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
> 
> And again you lie:
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========