Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: dbush Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string transformations to inputs --- MT Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 15:34:23 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 118 Message-ID: References: <-GOdnZvgEPn-84j1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <2qydnbbWA6CAGIv1nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87frhjamvt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <313c6e5a3816ff483563120b589b22d1bc190c2f@i2pn2.org> <6c627041e7df24bb64442ad7e0ee03db6a74aab6@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 21:34:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3013d96e0ac4b7dd359f7afe652f4ce0"; logging-data="1231022"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19dwAbaOcLj6MWeFx7z84K4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:wH4No+Ou3TBSfpmcdvBY6kUmQMo= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: On 5/7/2025 3:27 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2025 1:55 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/7/2025 2:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/7/2025 10:44 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 07 May 2025 10:03:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 5/7/2025 7:01 AM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 5/7/2025 6:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 06.mei.2025 om 21:15 schreef olcott: >>>> >>>>>>>> None-the-less it is the words that the best selling author of >>>>>>>> theory >>>>>>>> of computation textbooks agreed to: *would never stop running >>>>>>>> unless >>>>>>>> aborted* >>>>>>>> is the hypothetical HHH/DD pair where the same HHH that DD calls >>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>> not abort the simulation of its input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nevertheless, this change makes it fundamentally different. >>>>>>> I can't believe that you are so stupid to think that modifying a >>>>>>> program does not make a program different. Are you trolling? >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that he's shown he doesn't understand (and this list is by no >>>>>> means exhaustive): >>>>>> * what requirements are * what correct means * what true means * >>>>>> what a >>>>>> proof is * how proof by contradiction works >>>>>> I wouldn't put it past him that he actually believes it.  He'll say >>>>>> anything to avoid admitting to himself that he wasted that last 22 >>>>>> years not understanding what he was working on. >>>>>> (Anyone else that wants to add to this list, feel free) >>>>> >>>>> A simulating halt decider must correctly predict *what the behavior >>>>> would be* if it did not abort its simulation. >>> >>>> ...if it, the simulator, didn't abort. The input DD that is being >>>> simulated still calls the same real HHH that does abort. >>> HHH needs to predict what would happen if this very same >>> HHH did not abort its input. >> >> Category error.  Algorithms do one thing and one thing only. > > And by mathematical induction they can make correct > predictions about behavior. As well an incorrect predictions, as HHH(DD) does not correctly predict that DD will halt when executed directly as required. > > It looks like I have to go back to the dumbed down > version of DDD(). DD() is just way over all of your > heads. > > void DDD() > { >   HHH(DDD); >   return; > } > > _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] > > DDD correctly emulated HHH A lie, as you have previously admitted on the record: On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote: > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation, >>> >>> Sure they do you freaking moron... >> >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of >> executing the next instruction. >> >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT >> correctly simulate DD. > > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this > newsgroup after the above message: > > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote: > > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing > > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT* > > > > You are taking > > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS* > > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect. > > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any > instruction other than HLT. > > Therefore, as per the above criteria: > > LET THE RECORD SHOW > > That Peter Olcott > > Has *officially* admitted > > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH