Re: Turing computable functions --- EEE(III)

On 3/26/25 12:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/25 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 5:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/25 6:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 4:16 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 14:24:07 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>

Cannot possibly derive any outputs not computed from their inputs.

In particular, your HHH does not compute the behaviour of its input.
>

A Turing machine halt decider cannot possibly report on the behavior of
any directly executing process.
No Turing machine can every do this. This has always been beyond what
any Turing machine can ever do.
The best that any Turing machine halt decider can possibly do is
determine the behavior that an input finite string specifies.

Which iiis... surprise, whatever happens when you run it. You are
basically saying that simulators can make shit up.
>

When an input finite string specifies a pathological relationship with
its simulating halt decider the actual behavior that pathological
relationship derives must be reported because THAT IS THE BEHAVIOR THAT
IS SPECIFIED BY THIS INPUT FINITE STRING.

The relationship doesn't derive anything.
It is a tautology that a simulator reports what it reports. That doesn't
make that correct.
>

>
EEE emulates a finite number of steps EEE including
EEE emulating itself emulating III a finite number of times.
>
_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]
>
III has different behavior when emulated by any EEE
than when it is emulated by any other emulator.
>
When III is emulated by EEE it never reaches its
final halt state.
>
When III is emulated by any other emulator it
ALWAYS reaches its final halt state.
>
ALWAYS is the opposite of NEVER.
>
>

>
So?
>
Since you defined that EEE wasn't a UTM, its result is allowed to be subjective.
>

>
The same thing works for UTMs too yet they do not have
such a concise fully specified language where we can
directly see every micro-step of the algorithm.

>
Sure they do. You just need to look at the actual implementation of an actual UTM.
>

>

The behavior of III is, and always is, the behavior of its direct execution or the complete emulation of it by a REAL UTM, which for ALL

>
You have already said that there is no complete emulation.

>
Not by EEE, but by the UTM.
>

>

your EEEs that only emulate a finite number of steps and then return will always be to HALT.
>

>
It is the III emulated by the EEEs that never halt.

>
No, it is the partial emulation of III by any EEE never reaches a final state.
>
The fact that none of your EEE make a complete emulation means none of them actually establish "Halting" for the III.
>
And the partial emulation does halt, when EEE aborts it.
>

 Stops running is not halting.

But programs don't just "stop running".

Reaches a final halt state is halting.
III emulated by EEE never reaches its final halt state
even after an infinite number of steps are emulated.

Because EEE is not a correct emulator, because it is a partial emulator,
Only COMPLETE emulation is correct for determining final behavior, and thus your argument is just ADMITTING that you are just  liar.

 

>

Note, none of those EEE ever showed the ACTUAL behavior of their input, as that is BY DEFINITION, the behavior of that emulation by the UTM.
>

>
The behavior of III is
  [00002172]  [00002173]  [00002175]  [0000217a]...
This was always self-evident to anyone that knows the x86 language.

>
And what is after [0000217a], it SHOLD be [000015D2] but EEE don't know what is there, or breaks the rules looking there.
>
All you are doing it proving that it isn't just ordinary stupidity, but deliberate FRAUD based on pathological stupidity that you speak out of.
>
It seems you have just enough knowledge of what you say to avoid making your lies obvious enough to yourself that you might snap out of your brainwashing.
>

>

You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about, and your stupidity to not see your ignorance.

>
>

>