Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Using
 Finite String Transformations
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:03:31 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <vufj53$3j85r$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vto4vh$23i07$1@dont-email.me>
 <vto7qu$267in$1@dont-email.me> <k%RLP.1232047$Xb1.539402@fx05.ams4>
 <vtorpb$2uac$1@news.muc.de> <vtp32o$2vb5o$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtqpt5$17ns$1@news.muc.de> <vtrhbc$16pbv$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtrk7l$t44$1@news.muc.de> <vtrmfa$1be3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtvkgo$vjvi$1@dont-email.me> <vu2042$34l74$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu519u$1s5f9$1@dont-email.me> <vu6aha$2vn05$3@dont-email.me>
 <vu6dk4$2fq2$1@news.muc.de> <vu6knm$394oo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8cgm$2p5e$1@news.muc.de> <vu8gml$v0qa$2@dont-email.me>
 <vu8m2h$vn9b$2@dont-email.me> <vu8pr1$13jl5$8@dont-email.me>
 <vu8qo3$vn9b$4@dont-email.me> <vu8ruc$13jl5$12@dont-email.me>
 <vuaaae$2lbp9$2@dont-email.me>
 <zIWdnaZKufSzmpT1nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vub1go$3clpn$3@dont-email.me>
 <HcWcnf7heZkdG5T1nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vue4jl$28iho$5@dont-email.me> <vue5ph$27hl2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue95c$2d7t8$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 11:03:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a0b5a44668b086550efa9a99a3def063";
	logging-data="3776699"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uozmtWf9IOb7kYJBJNNBZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5B+KV/a1wz1JjwF1nFe57LzhbxE=
In-Reply-To: <vue95c$2d7t8$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 24.apr.2025 om 23:06 schreef olcott:
> On 4/24/2025 3:09 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 24.apr.2025 om 21:49 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 <are> finite strings, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> finite string transformation rules <are> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> THEY DIFFER BY THE EMULATED DD REACHES RECURSIVE EMULATION
>>> AND THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED DD NEVER DOES.
>>>
>>> When the finite string transformation rules of the
>>> x86 language are applied to the input to HHH(DD)
>>> THIS DD CANNOT POSSIBLY REACH ITS FINAL HALT STATE
>>> not even after an infinite number of emulated steps.
>>>
>>
>> It is only a finite recursion. 
> 
> TOTALLY INCORRECT --- Please pay better attention.
> 

Factually and verifiable incorrect. Take a better look at your code.
DD could reach its final halt state in a finite number of steps if the 
simulating HHH would not prevent it by a premature abort, because the 
simulated HHH would do the premature abort. This bug in HHH does not say 
anything about the properties of the program described in the input.