Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 17:38:22 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 149 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:38:23 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="297ec9b99b90c1a452f27cfdbb15f922"; logging-data="3895604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ZQKv445EKPsW2YuOS+Wo1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:iY3WYTL3U2L6jJcjSB//ov/ABqE= X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250328-4, 3/28/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 8165 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer