Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string
 transformations to inputs
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 15:02:32 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <vulv07$1do22$5@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>
 <b6fd774a57600defb787252e824051fea412e91d@i2pn2.org>
 <vulusj$1bf1j$11@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 21:02:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a1d054bd592325deef4ca46ca621dc5e";
	logging-data="1499202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IYJsu/zDxDbsRRBmloQEj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7e0IJ62+VnhKfnq3ophq09PWXSo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vulusj$1bf1j$11@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7480

On 4/27/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/26/25 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
>>
>> No, because the HHH that DD calls DOES abort, so "unless" isn't a 
>> valid word here. 
> 
> Then why did Professor Sipser and Ben agree to it?
> 
> <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 *yet again* you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it 
has been repeatedly proven that he does not:

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.
 >


Your dishonesty knows no bounds.