Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string
 transformations to inputs +++
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 19:50:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c491b7dd7ed2c6a1eebde79787d2862bfdc6771f@i2pn2.org>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <vuoaac$3jn5n$5@dont-email.me> <vuq81v$1hjka$1@dont-email.me>
 <vutefq$gmbi$3@dont-email.me>
 <991dde3a60e1485815b789520c7149e7842d18f2@i2pn2.org>
 <vuti3c$jq57$1@dont-email.me> <vutmr6$nvbg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vutv7r$v5pn$4@dont-email.me> <vuu73m$151a8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vuuej8$1cqp7$1@dont-email.me> <vuur2n$1qe3m$2@dont-email.me>
 <vv0352$2ur4q$1@dont-email.me> <vv0kpi$3djh5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv13ro$3r3ei$1@dont-email.me> <vv160a$3smj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv18s7$3uer0$1@dont-email.me> <vv1b03$4a4k$2@dont-email.me>
 <vv1bav$3ra6l$7@dont-email.me> <vv1frt$97hp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv1gfu$3ra6l$8@dont-email.me> <vv1js4$d4ik$1@dont-email.me>
 <-GOdnZvgEPn-84j1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vv4alu$2t388$1@dont-email.me>
 <K2ednc0OY5rg-Iv1nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vv5rpm$8mnn$1@dont-email.me> <vv61pm$c2hj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv83ak$29nkb$3@dont-email.me> <vv846v$2aln2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vv887i$2erlq$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 00:28:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3165240"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vv887i$2erlq$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4292
Lines: 64

On 5/4/25 1:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2025 11:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 04/05/2025 17:06, olcott wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> They simply guess that because DD(DD) halts that
>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH must also halt.
>>
>> It's not a guess. If direct execution halts, so must the simulation.
> 
> _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]
> 
> Maybe you are confused between halting (reaching
> a final halt state and terminating normally)
> with stopping running for any reason such as
> an aborted emulation. *THEY ARE NOT THE SAME*

But Halting is a property of the Machine iteelf, and not defined for a 
partial emulation as generated by a reason of an aborted emulation.

> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH stops running when
> HHH aborts its simulation.

Nope, that just show you are using an improperly defined term, as it 
isn't "correct"

> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.

No, "DD correctly emulated by HHH" is just a fantasy of ylur mind, and 
thhus not a valid basis to talk about anything,

After all, you have insisted on a definiton of HHH, as it is defined in 
Halt7.c, and it doesn't do what you claim HHH must do, thus all you are 
doing is proving you are just a pathological liar.

> 
> You must be imagining that DD emulated by HHH
> leaps over the "call" instruction and jumps
> straight to the "ret" instruction.


No, HHH just incorrectly stops its emulation, making your claims of a DD 
correctly emulated by HHGH just a pathological lie out that comes out of 
your ignorant imagination.
>