Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Functions computed by Turing Machines MUST apply finite string transformations to inputs --- MT Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 14:27:39 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 77 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 21:27:40 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee5137430f56269cd3e6381ddf24cf46"; logging-data="1226953"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18wGrsFMfFn0RbMg28YFUAp" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:bUJBogq9WrGmwAR50gbFyP3kU1g= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250507-4, 5/7/2025), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US 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. 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 remains stuck in recursive emulation repeating the same first four steps endlessly until HHH aborts its emulation and DDD immediately stops running before calling HHH(DDD) again. Under no circumstances can DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist reach past its own call instruction. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer