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

Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:38:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/29/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 10:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/29/25 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 5:08 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 5:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 4:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 2:26 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 2:06 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/29/2025 10:23 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/29/2025 11:12 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/28/2025 11:00 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/28/2025 11:45 PM, olcott wrote:

It is not impossible to adapt a UTM such that it correctly
simulates a finite number of steps of an input.

1) then you no longer have a UTM, so statements about a UTM
don't apply

We can know that when this adapted UTM simulates a finite number
of steps of its input that this finite number of steps were
simulated correctly.

And therefore does not do a correct UTM simulation that matches
the behavior of the direct execution as it is incomplete.

It is dishonest to expect non-terminating inputs to complete.

An input that halts when executed directly is not non-terminating

End of story.

2) changing the input is not allowed

The input is unchanged. There never was any indication that the
input was in any way changed.

False, if the starting function calls UTM and UTM changes, you're
changing the input.

When UTM1 is a UTM that has been adapted to only simulate a finite
number of steps

And is therefore no longer a UTM that does a correct and complete
simulation

and input D calls UTM1 then the behavior of D simulated by UTM1

Is not what I asked about.  I asked about the behavior of D when
executed directly.

Off topic for this thread.
UTM1 D DOES NOT HALT UTM2 D HALTS D is the same finite string in
both cases.

No it isn't, not if it is the definition of a PROGRAM.

As well as the machine code bytes of the function HHH and the machine
code bytes of everything that HHH calls down to the OS level, is that
of a program that halts when executed directly, which is the required
behavior to report on.

The test program must ignore its own behavior when testing the
program-under-test.

Now that is some nonsense. The test program is part of the program under
test; you said yourself one cannot ignore this relationship.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.