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 17:44:20 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 90 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 23:44:22 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="2595557"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FEHQ0FgQrTU96ODedVCZl" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:RjijW9pdB1q0sNh9lBKPl6uYVGQ= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 5238 On 3/29/2025 5:08 PM, dbush wrote: > On 3/29/2025 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. > > An input that halts when executed directly is not non-terminating > >> >>>> >>>>> 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 is therefore no longer a UTM that does a correct and complete > simulation > >> and input D calls UTM1 then the >> behavior of D simulated by UTM1 > > > Is not what I asked about.  I asked about the behavior of D when > executed directly. > Off topic for this thread. UTM1 D DOES NOT HALT UTM2 D HALTS D is the same finite string in both cases. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer