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: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 23:52:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 395
Message-ID: <vuplut$11gfd$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> <vujln7$32om9$8@dont-email.me>
 <vujmmm$3a526$2@dont-email.me> <vujmrj$32om9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vujtcb$3gsgr$1@dont-email.me>
 <XpecnXs9MtzKApD1nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <QJ-dnfPs3ckgO5D1nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <KvSdnTEjuOT7x5P1nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <sUydndwmjqgpho31nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 06:52:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0b89789aab052ff5f64890600c4ef3d2";
	logging-data="1098221"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19iui3TWxDsRx6c41t4LOIg"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oLkx4lJacAWd3PXmHq392eWbtCs=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250428-8, 4/28/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <sUydndwmjqgpho31nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Bytes: 19757

On 4/28/2025 7:22 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 27/04/2025 17:25, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/26/2025 10:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 27/04/2025 04:07, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 27/04/2025 01:22, 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*
>>>>
>>>> He most certainly did not!  He presumably agreed to what he / 
>>>> thought/ you meant by the words.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========