Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string
 transformations to inputs --- MT
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 15:34:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <vvgcju$15i5e$13@dont-email.me>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <vv0kpi$3djh5$1@dont-email.me> <vv13ro$3r3ei$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv160a$3smj7$1@dont-email.me> <vv18s7$3uer0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv1b03$4a4k$2@dont-email.me> <vv1bav$3ra6l$7@dont-email.me>
 <vv1frt$97hp$1@dont-email.me> <vv1gfu$3ra6l$8@dont-email.me>
 <vv1js4$d4ik$1@dont-email.me>
 <-GOdnZvgEPn-84j1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vv5e46$3rtqo$1@dont-email.me>
 <2qydnbbWA6CAGIv1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <87frhjamvt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <vv93tq$383jd$1@dont-email.me>
 <d3d98f966d50e250c233a6e883a4947c885bd99f@i2pn2.org>
 <vvbsjf$1us1f$5@dont-email.me>
 <313c6e5a3816ff483563120b589b22d1bc190c2f@i2pn2.org>
 <vvdi2p$3cbpq$7@dont-email.me> <vvdmam$3huo6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvdn4i$3k2gc$2@dont-email.me> <vvfbt6$ubvt$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvfi2a$10b0m$4@dont-email.me> <vvfsor$130t3$2@dont-email.me>
 <6c627041e7df24bb64442ad7e0ee03db6a74aab6@i2pn2.org>
 <vvg9sm$15e69$6@dont-email.me> <vvgaaq$15i5e$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvgc7b$15e69$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 21:34:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0";
	logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dwAbaOcLj6MWeFx7z84K4"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wH4No+Ou3TBSfpmcdvBY6kUmQMo=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvgc7b$15e69$8@dont-email.me>

On 5/7/2025 3:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2025 1:55 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/7/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2025 10:44 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 07 May 2025 10:03:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 5/7/2025 7:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2025 6:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 06.mei.2025 om 21:15 schreef olcott:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> None-the-less it is the words that the best selling author of 
>>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>>> of computation textbooks agreed to: *would never stop running 
>>>>>>>> unless
>>>>>>>> aborted*
>>>>>>>> is the hypothetical HHH/DD pair where the same HHH that DD calls 
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> not abort the simulation of its input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, this change makes it fundamentally different.
>>>>>>> I can't believe that you are so stupid to think that modifying a
>>>>>>> program does not make a program different. Are you trolling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that he's shown he doesn't understand (and this list is by no
>>>>>> means exhaustive):
>>>>>> * what requirements are * what correct means * what true means * 
>>>>>> what a
>>>>>> proof is * how proof by contradiction works
>>>>>> I wouldn't put it past him that he actually believes it.  He'll say
>>>>>> anything to avoid admitting to himself that he wasted that last 22
>>>>>> years not understanding what he was working on.
>>>>>> (Anyone else that wants to add to this list, feel free)
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict *what the behavior
>>>>> would be* if it did not abort its simulation.
>>>
>>>> ...if it, the simulator, didn't abort. The input DD that is being
>>>> simulated still calls the same real HHH that does abort.
>>> HHH needs to predict what would happen if this very same
>>> HHH did not abort its input.
>>
>> Category error.  Algorithms do one thing and one thing only. 
> 
> And by mathematical induction they can make correct
> predictions about behavior.

As well an incorrect predictions, as HHH(DD) does not correctly predict 
that DD will halt when executed directly as required.

> 
> It looks like I have to go back to the dumbed down
> version of DDD(). DD() is just way over all of your
> heads.
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
> [00002183] c3         ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> DDD correctly emulated HHH 

A lie, as you have previously admitted on the record:


On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH