Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 07:55:25 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <0a2eeee6cb4b6a737f6391c963386745a09c8a01@i2pn2.org> <4818688e0354f32267e3a5f3c60846ae7956bed2@i2pn2.org> <65dddfad4c862e6593392eaf27876759b1ed0e69@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 11:55:50 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2388319"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 On 4/29/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2025 7:22 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 27/04/2025 17:25, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/26/2025 10:38 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> On 27/04/2025 04:07, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 27/04/2025 01:22, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 5:11 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/25 4:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 1:26 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:29 schreef olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2025 12:16 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:22:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 5:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 25 Apr 2025 16:46:11 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2025 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/25/25 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once we understand that Turing computable functions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to derived their outputs by applying finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their inputs then my claim about the behavior of DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that HHH must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> report on is completely proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Youy have your words wrong. They are only ABLE to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithms of finite string operations. The problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solve do not need to be based on that, but on just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general mappings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of finite strings to finite strings that might not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> described by a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite algorithm. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mapping is computable, *IF* we can find a finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorith of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation steps to make that mapping. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string operations that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to the input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to HHH(DD) that derive the behavior of of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus DD is forbidden from reporting on this behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are, the operations that the processor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executes. How did you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it works? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you try to actually show the actual steps instead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of being stuck in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utterly baseless rebuttal mode YOU FAIL! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which x86 semantics does a processor violate when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deriving a halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state from the string description of DD? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When any HHH emulates DD according to the finite string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transformation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language (the line of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demarcation between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and incorrect emulation) no emulated DD can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state and halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, where is that line? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the x86 language yet no one can point out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which rules are violated because they already >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that HHH does not violate any rules and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are only playing trollish head games. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DD() >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD emulated by HHH according to the finite >>>>>>>>>>>>>> string transformation rules of the x86 language >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does emulate [00002133] through [0000213c] which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes HHH to emulate itself emulating DD again >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in recursive emulation repeating the cycle of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002133] through [0000213c]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Finite recursion, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by >>>>>>>>>>>> any HHH that applies finite string transformation >>>>>>>>>>>> rules specified by the x86 language to its input >>>>>>>>>>>> no DD can possibly reach its final halt state. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't, as you can't have an infinte series of a >>>>>>>>>>> function that has been defined to be a specific instance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One recursive emulation of HHH emulating itself emulating >>>>>>>>>> DD after DD has already been emulated by DD once conclusively >>>>>>>>>> proves that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> simulated DD would never stop running unless aborted >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its *simulated D would never* >>>>>>>>>> *stop running unless aborted* then >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And again you lie by implying that Sipser agrees with you when >>>>>>>>> it has been proven that he doesn't: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 2:41:27 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>  > I exchanged emails with him about this. He does not agree >>>>>>>>> with anything >>>>>>>>>  > substantive that PO has written. I won't quote him, as I >>>>>>>>> don't have >>>>>>>>>  > permission, but he was, let's say... forthright, in his >>>>>>>>> reply to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That professor Sipser did not have the time to >>>>>>>> understand the significance of what he agreed to >>>>>>>> does not entail that he did not agree with my >>>>>>>> meanings of what he agreed to. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Professor Sipser did not even have the time to >>>>>>>> understand the notion of recursive emulation. >>>>>>>> Without this it is impossible to see the significance >>>>>>>> of my work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, he did not you agree what you think he agreed to, >>>>>>> and your posting the above to imply that he did is a form of lying. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *He agreed to MY meaning of these words* >>>>> >>>>> He most certainly did not!  He presumably agreed to what he / >>>>> thought/ you meant by the words. >>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========