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

On 3/26/25 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 4:46 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:17:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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.

 

A partial simulation is not a complete simulation (non-halting
simulations are infinite).

 It is stupid to define a simulating termination that
cannot report non-terminating inputs. Simulating
termination analyzers recognize non-terminating
behavior patterns in a finite number of steps.

But that is the PROBLEM of trying to solve a problem by a method that just doesn't work.
Yes, they can recognize SOME actual non-halting behaviors in finite time.
Your problem is you keep on trying to redefine the criteraa, and action that is jst not allowed, and makes you into a liar. The criteria that your decider must answer is if this exact same, and COMPLETE input (thus needing to contain ALL the code used in it) is given to a COMPLETE and CORRECT simulator, would it stop.
Not if this "Program Template" (since templates are not programs) can be simulated by some decider that it is bound to can do it. That is just your strawman lie.

 

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.

 

Sure looks like EEE is faulty here.
>

 It might if you are totally clueless about the x86 language.

Really, and where in the Intel manual do you get that from?

 

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.
>

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.

 Of any non-terminating input.

But the COMPLETE input given to an actually correct emulator will halt, so the input isn't "non-terminating".
You just don't understand what that means.

 

Yes, that's the problem.
>

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.
>

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]...

No, III has no loop. You are confusing different simulation levels.
>

 I have used the term recursive emulation
hundreds of times, did you notice that I
ever said it at least once?
 

Right, but you MISUSE the term, as your usage requires that the emulator be a COMPLETE emulator, but then you try to using it with a partial emulator.
Sorry, all you have been doing is proving that you don't really understand what you are talking about, but just lie about things.