Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:26:44 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <69b9092a7114cf1dc702355193bc3c9d21235671@i2pn2.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:31:47 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2313829"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5354 Lines: 94 On 3/29/25 5:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/29/2025 2:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/29/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It defines that it must compute the mapping from >>>>>>>>>>> the direct execution of a Turing Machine >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only >>>>>>>>>> mapping properties of the TM described. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The key fact that you continue to dishonestly ignore >>>>>>>>> is the concrete counter-example that I provided that >>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that the finite string of machine >>>>>>>>> code input is not always a valid proxy for the behavior >>>>>>>>> of the underlying virtual machine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, you deny the concept of a UTM, which can take a >>>>>>>> description of any Turing machine and exactly reproduce the >>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I deny that a pathological relationship between a UTM and >>>>>>> its input can be correctly ignored. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In such a case, the UTM will not halt, and neither will the input >>>>>> when executed directly. >>>>> >>>>> It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it >>>>> correctly simulates a finite number of steps of an >>>>> input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 1) then you no longer have a UTM, so statements about a UTM don't apply >>> >>> We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a >>> finite number of steps of its input that this finite >>> number of steps were simulated correctly. >> >> And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that matches the >> behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete. >> > > It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete. Why? Since a UTM exactly reproduces the behavior of the machine described to it, if that won't terminate, then neither can the UTM. Running forever *IS* exactly reproducing that behavior. > >>> >>>> 2) changing the input is not allowed >>> >>> The input is unchanged. There never was any >>> indication that the input was in any way changed. >>> >> >> False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're >> changing the input. >> > > When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate > a finite number of steps and input D calls UTM1 then the > behavior of D simulated by UTM1 never reaches its final > halt state. ANd thus UTM1 is not a UTM. PERIOD, and to call it one is just a LIE, and it not reaching a final state is no longer a proof of non-halting. You just want to call your non-street-legal racing car as if it was street-legal because that is what you started with. Telling that to the judge, might get you thrown into jail for contempt or perjery. > > When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call > Then D reaches its final halt state. Becuase UTM2 is a real UTM that gives the right answer. > >> Changing the input is not allowed. > I never changed the input. D always calls UTM1. > thus is the same input to UTM1 as it is to UTM2. >