Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---

On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 12:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 11:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:43:03 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int main()
{
    HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
}
There is no program DDD in the above code.

There is also no Infinite_Recursion.
>

Since no Turing machine M can ever compute the mapping from the behavior
of any directly executed TM2 referring to the behavior of the directly
executed DDD has always been incorrect. Halt Deciders always report on
the behavior that their input finite string specifies.

>

Please explain what behaviour the description of a TM "specifies",
and which TM the input describes.
>

>
"Bill sang a song" describes what Bill did.
A tape recording of Bill singing that same
song completely specifies what Bill did.

>
And what a UTM does with this input completely specifies its behavior,
>

>

In every case that does not involve pathological self-reference the
behavior that the finite string specifies is coincidentally the same
behavior as the direct execution of the corresponding machine. The
actual measure, however, has always been the behavior that the finite
string input specifies.

...which is the direct execution. Not much of a coincidence.
>

>
_III()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov  ebp,esp  ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push III
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call EEE(III)
[0000217f] 83c404     add  esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop  ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
When-so-ever any correct emulator EEE correctly emulates
a finite number of steps of an input III that calls this
same emulator to emulate itself the behavior of the direct
execution of III will not be the same as the behavior of
the emulated III.
>

>
Becuase a finite emulation that stop before the end is not a correct emulation

>
In other words you keep dishonestly trying to get away with
disagreeing with the law of identity.
>
When N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE
then N steps are III are correctly emulated by EEE.

>
Which isn't the same as the CORRECT emulation that shows if the program being emulated will halt/.
>

>
There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its
own "ret" instruction and terminates normally.
>

>
Because

>
In other words you agree that the recursive emulation
of a single finite string of x86 machine code single
machine address [00002172] cannot possibly reach its
own machine address [00002183]when emulated by emulator
EEE according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>
>

 But it isn't a single finite string of x86 machince code,

As a matter of verified fact it is a single finite
string of machine code at a fixed offset in the
Halt7.obj file.

as to emulate it we need to include the machine code of EEE,

Which would also be a single finite string of machine code
at a fixed offset in the Halt7.obj file if it was not an
infinite set of hypothetical pure x86 emulators.

which you just said froms an infinite set of partial emulators.
 That is your fundamental problem, that you need to redefine the meaning of core terms

A freaking set of pure x86 emulators EEE[0] to EEE[N] that
emulates 0 to N instructions of III IS NOT REDEFINING ANY
TERMS.

to try to "establish" your facts, and thus you don't establish them in the logic system you claim to be talking about (the one that Turing made his claim in)
 Sorry, your statements are just self-contradictory, and you are proven to be ignoran.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer