Sujet : Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1
De : dbush.mobile (at) *nospam* gmail.com (dbush)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 29. Mar 2025, 05:00:43
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vs7r9b$8ajp$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 9:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/28/25 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 8:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/28/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 5:30 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/28/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 3:38 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/28/2025 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 2:24 PM, dbush wrote:
On 3/28/2025 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:
On 3/28/2025 4:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 28.mrt.2025 om 03:13 schreef olcott:
On 3/27/2025 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 3/27/25 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. I proved
this many times in may ways. Ignoring these proofs
IT NOT ANY FORM OF REBUTTAL.
>
>
Sure they can.
>
WHere is your proof? And what actual accepted principles is is based on?
>
>
No TM can take another directly executed TM as an input
and Turing computable functions only compute the mapping
from inputs to outputs.
>
>
If A TM can only compute the mapping from *its* input to *its* output, it cannot be wrong.
>
Taking a wild guess does not count as computing the mapping.
>
False. The only requirement is to map a member of the input domain to a member of the output domain as per the requirements.
>
If it does so in all cases, the mapping is computed. It doesn't matter how it's done.
>
>
Unless an input is transformed into an output
on the basis of a syntactic or semantic property
of this input it is not a Turing computable function.
>
int StringLength(char *S)
{
return 5;
}
>
Does not compute the string length of any string.
>
>
>
False. It computes the length of all strings of length 5.
>
It does not compute (a sequence of steps of an
algorithm that derive an output on the basis of
an input) jack shit it makes a guess.
>
>
Doesn't matter. If the requirement is to return 5 for strings that have a length of 5, it meets the requirement.
>
The actual requirement is to compute the mapping
from a finite string to its length using a sequence
of algorithmic steps.
>
Likewise for halting. Compute the mapping from a
finite string of machine code to the behavior that
this finite string specifies.
>
>
With that specifcation DEFINED as the behavior of the machine described when it is actually run.
>
>
In other words the halting problem is defined to
not be allowed to use computable functions and it
is this screwball definition that prevents the
halting function from being Turing computable.
>
>
The Halting Problem DEFINES THE FUNCTION.
>
It defines that it must compute the mapping from
the direct execution of a Turing Machine
Which does not require tracing an actual running TM, only mapping properties of the TM described. And as your yourself said:
On 3/27/2025 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> I corrected your error dozens of times and you
> ignore these corrections and mindlessly repeat
> your error like a bot
Any future claim that tracing a running TM is required will be construed as the dishonest dodge of the strawman deception.
DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined 2