Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using Finite String Transformations Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:45:31 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 97 Message-ID: References:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 21:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8278b879b49e14b6990f113f300251ec"; logging-data="2378296"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19wCpFCpeqlSUlFk+R8lGMX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:QrLfyy7p9fyeaWGy57uf2HMhALA= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250424-14, 4/24/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US On 4/24/2025 2:15 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 24.apr.2025 om 19:46 schreef olcott: >> On 4/24/2025 3:11 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 05:34 schreef olcott: >>>> On 4/23/2025 7:31 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 23/04/2025 16:38, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/23/2025 10:28 AM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> On 23/04/2025 10:02, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:50 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 21:14 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2025 1:10 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Op 22.apr.2025 om 18:38 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a function is computable if there exists an algorithm >>>>>>>>>>>>> that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the function domain it can return the corresponding output. >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Turing Machines inputs finite strings, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules applied to >>>>>>>>>>>>> these finite strings to derive corresponding outputs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And it has been proven that no finite string transformations >>>>>>>>>>>> are possible that report the halting behaviour for all >>>>>>>>>>>> inputs that specify a correct program. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; } >>>>>>>>>>> Only when people stupid assume the same thing as >>>>>>>>>>> sum(3,2) should return the sum of 5 + 3. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore HHH should report on the actual input, the finite >>>>>>>>>> string that describes a halting program. Not on the >>>>>>>>>> hypothetical input that does not halt, because it is based on >>>>>>>>>> a hypothetical HHH that does not abort. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you maintain that HHH should process the hypothetical >>>>>>>>>> input instead of the actual input. >>>>>>>>>> Do you really believe that 3+2 equals 5+3? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have proven that the directly executed DD and DD >>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the >>>>>>>>> x86 language have a different set of state changes >>>>>>>>> many hundreds of times for several years. >>>>>>>> You never showed a proof. You only repeated a dream. You are >>>>>>>> dreaming many years without any logic. You failed to show the >>>>>>>> first state change where the direct execution is different from >>>>>>>> the simulation. You only showed an erroneous HHH that fails to >>>>>>>> reach the end of the simulation of a halting program. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Worse than this, on more than one occasion I've actually posted >>>>>>> traces of computation DDD(DDD) executed directly and simulated by >>>>>>> HHH side by side. Both traces were of course /identical/, up to >>>>>>> the point where HHH stops simulating. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Factually incorrect* (You are usually very careful about these >>>>>> things) >>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from the directly executed DD returns. >>>>>> The call to HHH(DD) from DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly return. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ...because HHH stops simulating before reaching that step in the >>>>> computation. Note that I said >>>>> >>>>> MT: Both traces were of course /identical/, >>>>> *up to the point where HHH stops simulating* >>>>> >>>>> So I was factually correct. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Mike. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It *is not* up to the point where HHH stops simulating. >>>> >>>> It is up to the point where the simulated versus directly >>>> executed calls HHH(DD). >>>> >>> That is exactly the same point. If not, show the difference in the >>> traces before that point. >> >> As soon as the directly executed DD calls HHH(DD) this >> call immediately returns. >> >> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) then HHH emulates >> DD and also emulates itself emulating DD. This is one >> whole recursive emulation than the directly executed >> DD can possibly get to. > Again a lot of words, which hide that you cannot show where the traces > differ up to that point. THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer