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 16:46:26 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:46:27 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25098614a506fec9a884b9c00c7b5ec8"; logging-data="2354852"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Bo7h4O91xOBmUwbA6atfs" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:XXiPpv2PAf/XM48w/t5heQvhhQY= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250329-4, 3/29/2025), Outbound message Bytes: 4910 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. >> >>> 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. When D is simulated by ordinary UTM2 that D does not call Then D reaches its final halt state. > 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. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer