Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:50:38 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 119 Message-ID: References: <9f2ff3ab9b99a7bb6dfa0885f9757f810ce52e66@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:50:39 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2f5a5d73b9c0193d8d0ef7f30f611d28"; logging-data="1617588"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/EK5JwD7+JPuRWFRuSFmEM" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wpiQuPNQ4JlLYKlY4U/FiFmy//8= Content-Language: nl, en-GB In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6481 Op 30.mrt.2025 om 04:35 schreef olcott: > On 3/29/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 3/29/25 6:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> No it isn't, not if it is the definition of a PROGRAM. >> > > _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] > > The behavior that these machine code bytes specify: > 558bec6872210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3 > as an input to HHH is different than these > same bytes as input to HHH1 as a verified fact. > >> Or, are you admitting you don't understand the meaning of a program? >> > > It seems that you "just don't believe in" verified facts. > That completely depends on who has verified it. If everyone can see that the way in which Olcott verifies his 'facts' is only a baseless claim, I do not believe in the verification. In particular when he does not fix the errors in the verification that were pointed out to him.