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: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:46:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 147
Message-ID: <vunprc$37b0f$1@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> <vulv07$1do22$5@dont-email.me>
 <vun0cl$2ett4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:46:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="67af223ffcc413f8c29b457017b45374";
	logging-data="3386383"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iFAY8ysxui3tTQf701d5q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nT2SrjZi54Lx77xa+V0yDU1+NDU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vun0cl$2ett4$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8071

On 4/28/2025 12:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/27/2025 2:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> His agreement was only needed for the quoted words.
> 


Which you use to imply that he agrees with you when it's proven he doesn't.

That's lying.