Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 21:24:28 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <30a6b1eb6f69e2e06bd82aa8274fa7e6c8dd4b2c@i2pn2.org> 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 01:44:11 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2185630"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 19018 Lines: 428 On 4/27/25 11:46 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/26/2025 10:07 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 27/04/2025 01:22, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/2025 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when it >>>>>> has been proven that he doesn't: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to >>>>> understand the significance of what he agreed to >>>>> does not entail that he did not agree with my >>>>> meanings of what he agreed to. >>>>> >>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to >>>>> understand the notion of recursive emulation. >>>>> Without this it is impossible to see the significance >>>>> of my work. >>>> >>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, >>>> and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying. >>>> >>> >>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words* >> >> He most certainly did not!  He presumably agreed to what he /thought/ >> you meant by the words. >> > > I know what I meant by my words and rephrased them > so that everyone that says that HHH should report > on the direct execution of DD looks ridiculously foolish. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========