Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1

Op 28.mrt.2025 om 02:21 schreef olcott:

On 3/27/2025 8:09 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:38 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 8:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:02 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 1:27 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 1:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 2:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 27.mrt.2025 om 04:09 schreef olcott:

On 3/26/2025 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
_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]
>

Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, it isn't showing non-halting.
>

>
DDD emulated by any HHH will never reach its final state
in an unbounded number of steps.
>
DDD emulated by HHH1 reaches its final state in a finite
number of steps.
>

It is not very interesting to know whether a simulator reports that it is unable to reach the end of the simulation of a program that halts in direct execution.

>
That IS NOT what HHH is reporting.
HHH correctly rejects DDD because DDD correctly
emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
final halt state.

>
In other words, HHH is not a halt decider because it is not computing the required mapping:
>

>
Troll
>

>
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 3:19:42 PM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
 > In other words you could find any error in my post so you resort to the
 > lame tactic of ad hominem personal attack.
>

>
Troll
>

>
On 7/22/2024 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
 > *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders*
>

>
I corrected your error dozens of times and you
ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat
your error like a bot

>
Which is what you've been doing for the last three years.
>
Projection, as always.  I'll add the above to the list.
>

>
TM's cannot possibly ever report on the behavior
of the direct execution of another TM.

>
False:
>

 I did not say that no TM can ever report on
behavior that matches the behavior of a directly
executing TM.
 No TM can every directly see the behavior of the
direct execution of any other TM because no TM can
take a directly executing TM as an input.
 The best that any TM can ever do to see what
the behavior of another TM might be is to simulate
the machine code (TM description) of this machine.
 When this input defines a pathological relationship
with its simulating half decider this does prevent
this simulated machine from reaching its final halt state.
 

When solving a problem, it is stupid to choose a tool that has a pathological relation with the problem. If I want to repair a hammer, it is stupid to use this same hammer to fix it.
Similarly, to solve the question whether DDD halts, one can use direct execution, or a world-class simulator, or even HHH1, but it is stupid to choose a solver that has a pathological relation with this input, because it is guaranteed that it will give the wrong answer.