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

On 3/28/2025 1:12 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/28/2025 1:57 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

 Category error.
 I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when executed directly. 

It is 100% impossible for any TM to take another executing
TM as its input. No one bothered to notice this nuance
before because they assumed that a finite string machine
description was always a perfect proxy.
IT IS NOT A PERFECT PROXY
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer