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: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:28:01 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 187 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:28:04 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="1985206"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3o5Dx+LR2Ov6foX8CWUJu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:avJLEXrQng285uA0qghui4aI9O4= In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 10256 On 3/29/2025 6:01 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 3/28/25 11:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an >>>>>>>> algorithm that derive an output on the basis of >>>>>>>> an input) jack shit it makes a guess. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings >>>>>>> that have a length of 5, it meets the requirement. >>>>>> >>>>>> The actual requirement is to compute the mapping >>>>>> from a finite string to its length using a sequence >>>>>> of algorithmic steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a >>>>>> finite string of machine code to the behavior that >>>>>> this finite string specifies. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine >>>>> described when it is actually run. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========