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

On 3/27/2025 9:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 10:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/27/2025 8:24 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/27/2025 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
Good, because that's all that's required for a solution to the halting problem:
>

>
There are sometimes when the behavior of TM Description
D correctly simulated by UTM1 does not match the behavior
correctly simulated by UTM2.

 Irrelevant, because to satisfy the requirements, the behavior of the described machine when executed directly must be reported.

I HAVE PROVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS WRONG NITWIT.
A FUNCTION THAT IS REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE SQUARE
OF A BOX OF ROCKS IS ALSO INCORRECT.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer