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 15:24:17 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 105 Message-ID: References: <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 20:24:16 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="03fe113b48149dc853aaf379e67b2ca8"; logging-data="2919616"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/B+RZkvSuYO0ARqKEl+fO9" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ByhxgDCNNYRwBICy7B3x+NcTBTk= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6101 On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott: >>> On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 3/27/25 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. I proved >>>>> this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs >>>>> IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure they can. >>>> >>>> WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is based >>>> on? >>>> >>> >>> No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input >>> and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping >>> from inputs to outputs. >>> >> >> If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* output, >> it cannot be wrong. > > Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping. False. The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain to a member of the output domain as per the requirements. If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed. It doesn't matter how it's done.