Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:30:36 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 121 Message-ID: References: <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:30:37 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="573eb7050e522f67e4fe879678fe5346"; logging-data="3445926"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/LfVvlGrDahPzdliXL6FxE" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:vTyFHDU8B1uCdSl9FFsdpJy4itE= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6766 On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott: >>>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/27/25 9:07 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> staste even if an unbounded number of steps are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, it isn't showing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in an unbounded number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of steps. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that it is unable to reach the end of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of a program that halts in direct execution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That IS NOT what HHH is reporting. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>> computing the required mapping: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Troll >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>  > In other words you could find any error in my post so you >>>>>>>>>>> resort to the >>>>>>>>>>>  > lame tactic of ad hominem personal attack. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Troll >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>  > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I corrected your error dozens of times and you >>>>>>>> ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat >>>>>>>> your error like a bot >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is what you've been doing for the last three years. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior >>>>>> of the direct execution of another TM. I proved >>>>>> this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs >>>>>> IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure they can. >>>>> >>>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is >>>>> based on? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input >>>> and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping >>>> from inputs to outputs. >>>> >>> >>> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* >>> output, it cannot be wrong. >> >> Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping. > > False.  The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain to a > member of the output domain as per the requirements. > > If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed.  It doesn't matter > how it's done. > Unless an input is transformed into an output on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property of this input it is not a Turing computable function. int StringLength(char *S) { return 5; } Does not compute the string length of any string. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer