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: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:49:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 134
Message-ID: <vuot4h$7n8s$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <bf0ee557f7c0eba386944a4551e607895c620d44@i2pn2.org>
 <vue9im$2d7t8$5@dont-email.me>
 <09bba11868dafecb6800ba8aec152304fec97553@i2pn2.org>
 <vuej7d$2md4c$1@dont-email.me>
 <51a4be0ebc0ddc76954fd2e5ec1c5951b5f306e3@i2pn2.org>
 <vug1gc$116u$1@dont-email.me>
 <6bd35d1c5fb0d281a29dc8e56458f2b83f63d878@i2pn2.org>
 <vugl27$it5g$2@dont-email.me> <vui73e$217h6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuj0rf$2lf64$5@dont-email.me> <vukunp$i1sb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vulsm7$1bf1j$6@dont-email.me> <vungbu$2ujct$1@dont-email.me>
 <vuo99r$3jn5n$4@dont-email.me> <vuo9aq$3dd6e$4@dont-email.me>
 <vuohjk$3td7u$2@dont-email.me> <vuohst$3dd6e$6@dont-email.me>
 <vuojet$3td7u$6@dont-email.me> <vuojqg$3dd6e$11@dont-email.me>
 <vuomc0$1pcj$3@dont-email.me> <vuomsu$3dd6e$13@dont-email.me>
 <vuonb6$2gnd$2@dont-email.me> <vuoo47$2tu0$5@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 23:49:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc4092dca5685a99a96dd309586b7dc0";
	logging-data="253212"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Gzjhoqiai9xo/NeY7hcU4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SxhlaLWzZ6TXdmNYkIyFeMe/2bs=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250428-8, 4/28/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vuoo47$2tu0$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7390

On 4/28/2025 3:23 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.apr.2025 om 22:10 schreef olcott:
>> On 4/28/2025 3:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2025 3:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/28/2025 2:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 4/28/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/28/2025 1:37 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/28/2025 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2025 11:11 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2025 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/28/2025 4:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-27 18:23:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/27/2025 4:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-26 16:15:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a type error above. First DD is introduced as a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But later it is used in the phrase "no emulated DD" where 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rules
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the language require a generic name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *This of this as an axiom schema*
>>>>>>>>>>>> No DD correctly emulated by any HHH can possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its final halt state. This conclusively
>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that every HHH is correct to reject its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input DD as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That cannot be used as a schema before you specify what 
>>>>>>>>>>> symbols in it are
>>>>>>>>>>> placeholders and what replacements can be used for the 
>>>>>>>>>>> placeholders.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have gone over this many hundreds of times
>>>>>>>>>> do you not remember anything that I already said?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = EEE(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When each element of the set of x86 emulators
>>>>>>>>>> named EEE 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hypothetical possibilities numbskull.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're hypothesizing changing the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Examining the infinite set of HHH/DD pairs simultaneously
>>>>>> IS NOT CHANGING THE INPUT DUMBO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When DD runs, HHH runs.  So HHH is part of the input.  So when you 
>>>>> hypothesize changing HHH, you're hypothesizing changing the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> Changing the input, hypothetically or otherwise, is not allowed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH[0] emulates zero instructions of DD
>>>> HHH[1] emulates one  instructions of DD
>>>> HHH[n] emulates n    instructions of DD
>>>> HHH[∞] emulates ∞    instructions of DD
>>>
>>> FALSE:
>>>
>>> HHH[0] emulates zero instructions of DD[0]
>>> HHH[1] emulates one  instructions of DD[1]
>>> HHH[n] emulates n    instructions of DD[n]
>>> HHH[∞] emulates ∞    instructions of DD[∞]
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Each DD has the exactly same machine code
>>>
>>> False, because the algorithm DD consists of the machine code of the 
>>> function DD, the function HHH, and the machine code of everything 
>>> that HHH calls down to the OS level.
>>>
>>
>> You can look at it that way.
>>
>>> So when you hypothesize changing the code of the function HHH, you're 
>>> hypothesizing changing the input algorithm DD.
>>>
>>> Changing the input is not allowed.
>>
>>
>> Of the freaking infinite set of every damn HHH/DD
>> pair that can possibly exist where DD is emulated
>> by HHH according to the finite string transformation
>> rules of the x86 language NOT A DAMN ONE OF THE EMULATED DD HALTS.

> Because they all were prevented to halt by HHH, which aborts the 
> simulation prematurely. 

Factually incorrect and apparently way over your head.

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