Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Fred. Zwarts" Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:15:05 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 148 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:15:05 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="13640222a42b83ce918b512af2679e23"; logging-data="930899"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19G1paj48rDR6Pk8OYz0KWW" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:qZYJ34bok+yW9Rat8r6wMbBQmZA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: nl, en-GB Op 28.mrt.2025 om 23:38 schreef olcott: > On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless an input is transformed into an output >>>>> on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property >>>>> of this input it is not a Turing computable function. >>>>> >>>>> int StringLength(char *S) >>>>> { >>>>>    return 5; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> Does not compute the string length of any string. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> False.  It computes the length of all strings of length 5. >>> >>> It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an >>> algorithm that derive an output on the basis of >>> an input) jack shit it makes a guess. >>> >> >> Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that >> have a length of 5, it meets the requirement. > > The actual requirement is to compute the mapping > from a finite string to its length using a sequence > of algorithmic steps. > > Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a > finite string of machine code to the behavior that > this finite string specifies .... according to the semantics of the x86 language, which is shown during direct execution.