Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:21:32 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 106 Message-ID: References: <8423998561d8feee807509b0ed6335123d35a7c9@i2pn2.org> <448c82acff6b5fc1d2aa266be92df6f778ec2c6a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:21:32 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="03fe113b48149dc853aaf379e67b2ca8"; logging-data="2919616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+I32Q/RdeGXDbyideqj2zX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:y3QLoAiEmzkGpCqgypTY1hyMH3w= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6193 On 3/28/2025 3:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/28/2025 4:35 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 02:21 schreef olcott: >>> On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/27/2025 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. >>>> >>>> False: >>>> >>> >>> I did not say that no TM can ever report on >>> behavior that matches the behavior of a directly >>> executing TM. >>> >>> No TM can every directly see the behavior of the >>> direct execution of any other TM because no TM can >>> take a directly executing TM as an input. >>> >>> The best that any TM can ever do to see what >>> the behavior of another TM might be is to simulate >>> the machine code (TM description) of this machine. >>> >>> When this input defines a pathological relationship >>> with its simulating half decider this does prevent >>> this simulated machine from reaching its final halt state. >>> >> >> When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a >> pathological relation with the problem. > > The halt decider Doesn't exist as proven by Linz and others.