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: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 23:32:21 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 143 Message-ID: References: <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org> <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org> <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 06:32:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc4092dca5685a99a96dd309586b7dc0"; logging-data="2586532"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+w+SC3A4DJudWCXm5OIptX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:cYts7p4iQEX0cnxtT7JfaZPn7aI= In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250427-6, 4/27/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 7980 On 4/27/2025 2:02 PM, dbush wrote: > On 4/27/2025 3:00 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/26/2025 9:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/26/25 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2025 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/26/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/2025 1:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 12:16 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derived their outputs by applying finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on is completely proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Youy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms of finite string operations. The problem they >>>>>>>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> solve do not need to be based on that, but on just general >>>>>>>>>>>>> mappings >>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings to finite strings that might not be >>>>>>>>>>>>> described by a >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>> algorith of >>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation steps to make that mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string operations that can be applied to >>>>>>>>>>>> the input >>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>> executed DD >>>>>>>>>>>> thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are, the operations that the processor executes. >>>>>>>>>>> How did you >>>>>>>>>>> think it works? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When you try to actually show the actual steps instead of >>>>>>>>>> being stuck in >>>>>>>>>> utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL! >>>>>>>>> Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when deriving a >>>>>>>>> halting >>>>>>>>> state from the string description of DD? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string >>>>>>>>>> transformation >>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language (the line of demarcation >>>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>>> correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can possibly >>>>>>>>>> reach its >>>>>>>>>> final halt state and halt. >>>>>>>>> Yes, where is that line? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules >>>>>>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out >>>>>>>> which rules are violated because they already >>>>>>>> know that HHH does not violate any rules and >>>>>>>> they are only playing trollish head games. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the finite >>>>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language >>>>>>>> does emulate [00002133] through [0000213c] which >>>>>>>> causes HHH to emulate itself emulating DD again >>>>>>>> in recursive emulation repeating the cycle of >>>>>>>> [00002133] through [0000213c]. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finite recursion, >>>>>> >>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by >>>>>> any HHH that applies finite string transformation >>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to its input >>>>>> no DD can possibly reach its final halt state. >>>>> >>>>> No, it doesn't, as you can't have an infinte series of a function >>>>> that has been defined to be a specific instance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> One recursive emulation of HHH emulating itself emulating >>>> DD after DD has already been emulated by DD once conclusively >>>> proves that >>>> >>>> simulated DD would never stop running unless aborted >>> >>> No, because the HHH that DD calls DOES abort, so "unless" isn't a >>> valid word here. >> >> Then why did Professor Sipser and Ben agree to it? >> >> >>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>      until H correctly determines that its *simulated D would never* >>      *stop running unless aborted* then >> >>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> >> > > And *yet again* you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it > has been repeatedly proven that he does not: > > On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree with anything > > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I don't have > > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his reply to me. > > > > > Your dishonesty knows no bounds. > His agreement was only needed for the quoted words. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer