1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Google [x86utm operating system] --

    From joes@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 12 19:50:53 2025
    Am Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:47:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:32 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:17 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:52 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:37 PM, dbush wrote:

    The problem is that algorithm HHH does one thing and one thing >>>>>>>>>> only, and that's simulate algorithm DD for some fixed number of >>>>>>>>>> steps N.
    Anything that simulates algorithm DD for a different number of >>>>>>>>>> steps is not algorithm HHH and therefore irrelevant.

    *The actual question is this*
    Does any HHH/DD pair exist such that N steps of DD are correctly >>>>>>>>> simulated by its HHH and this DDD reaches its own simulated
    final halt state?
    Deflection.

    In other words, HHH is deciding on a set of machine code
    instructions other that it was given. i.e. a non-input.
    Halt deciders can only decide on their inputs, i.e. the algorithm >>>>>>>> that the finite string input is defined to specify, i.e. DD. They >>>>>>>> cannot decide on non-inputs, i.e. any alternate implementation of >>>>>>>> function HHH.

    Human beings examine the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs so that
    they can understand that no DDD correctly simulated by any HHH

    Each of which is a different algorithm
    It is the exact same algorithm of HHH simulating N steps of DD.
    In other words, there is no infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs but a
    single HHH and a single DDD, and HHH does not correctly simulate DDD
    because it aborts.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. They might use the same
    algorithm, but they are not interchangeable.

    There is an infinite set of HHH/DD pairs implementing the exact same
    algorithm

    FALSE!
    An algorithm is a fixed, immutable sequence of instructions.
    So the bubble sort algorithm does not exist because there are slight variations with how this algorithm can be implemented.
    You are being ridiculous. They are clearly not identical.

    So if a given implementation of function H is simulating a different
    number of steps from another implementation, by definition they are not
    the same algorithm.
    Well, they are similar programs with a different parameter.

    --
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 13 10:55:29 2025
    Op 12.aug.2025 om 22:22 schreef olcott:
    On 8/12/2025 2:50 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:47:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:32 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:17 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:52 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:37 PM, dbush wrote:

    The problem is that algorithm HHH does one thing and one thing >>>>>>>>>>>> only, and that's simulate algorithm DD for some fixed number of >>>>>>>>>>>> steps N.
    Anything that simulates algorithm DD for a different number of >>>>>>>>>>>> steps is not algorithm HHH and therefore irrelevant.

    *The actual question is this*
    Does any HHH/DD pair exist such that N steps of DD are correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by its HHH and this DDD reaches its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>> final halt state?
    Deflection.

    In other words, HHH is deciding on a set of machine code
    instructions other that it was given. i.e. a non-input.
    Halt deciders can only decide on their inputs, i.e. the algorithm >>>>>>>>>> that the finite string input is defined to specify, i.e. DD. They >>>>>>>>>> cannot decide on non-inputs, i.e. any alternate implementation of >>>>>>>>>> function HHH.

    Human beings examine the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs so that >>>>>>>>> they can understand that no DDD correctly simulated by any HHH >>>>>>>>
    Each of which is a different algorithm
    It is the exact same algorithm of HHH simulating N steps of DD.
    In other words, there is no infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs but a
    single HHH and a single DDD, and HHH does not correctly simulate DDD >>>>>> because it aborts.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. They might use the same
    algorithm, but they are not interchangeable.

    There is an infinite set of HHH/DD pairs implementing the exact same >>>>> algorithm

    FALSE!
    An algorithm is a fixed, immutable sequence of instructions.
    So the bubble sort algorithm does not exist because there are slight
    variations with how this algorithm can be implemented.
    You are being ridiculous. They are clearly not identical.

    So if a given implementation of function H is simulating a different
    number of steps from another implementation, by definition they are not >>>> the same algorithm.
    Well, they are similar programs with a different parameter.


    The different number of steps merely confirms that
    DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.


    No, they prove that HHH fails to reach the final halt state.
    Not reaching the final halt state because the computer is switched off,
    or because the simulation is aborted, does not change the fact that a
    final halt state is specified in this input.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fred. Zwarts@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 14 11:00:35 2025
    Op 13.aug.2025 om 17:52 schreef olcott:
    On 8/13/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
    Op 12.aug.2025 om 22:22 schreef olcott:
    On 8/12/2025 2:50 PM, joes wrote:
    Am Tue, 12 Aug 2025 13:47:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
    On 8/12/2025 1:42 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:39 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:32 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:25 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:17 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:52 PM, dbush wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 1:47 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/12/2025 12:37 PM, dbush wrote:

    The problem is that algorithm HHH does one thing and one >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing
    only, and that's simulate algorithm DD for some fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
    steps N.
    Anything that simulates algorithm DD for a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of
    steps is not algorithm HHH and therefore irrelevant.

    *The actual question is this*
    Does any HHH/DD pair exist such that N steps of DD are >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
    simulated by its HHH and this DDD reaches its own simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> final halt state?
    Deflection.

    In other words, HHH is deciding on a set of machine code >>>>>>>>>>>> instructions other that it was given. i.e. a non-input. >>>>>>>>>>>> Halt deciders can only decide on their inputs, i.e. the >>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm
    that the finite string input is defined to specify, i.e. DD. >>>>>>>>>>>> They
    cannot decide on non-inputs, i.e. any alternate
    implementation of
    function HHH.

    Human beings examine the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs so that >>>>>>>>>>> they can understand that no DDD correctly simulated by any HHH >>>>>>>>>>
    Each of which is a different algorithm
    It is the exact same algorithm of HHH simulating N steps of DD. >>>>>>>> In other words, there is no infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs but a >>>>>>>> single HHH and a single DDD, and HHH does not correctly simulate >>>>>>>> DDD
    because it aborts.
    You can't have your cake and eat it too. They might use the same
    algorithm, but they are not interchangeable.

    There is an infinite set of HHH/DD pairs implementing the exact same >>>>>>> algorithm

    FALSE!
    An algorithm is a fixed, immutable sequence of instructions.
    So the bubble sort algorithm does not exist because there are slight >>>>> variations with how this algorithm can be implemented.
    You are being ridiculous. They are clearly not identical.

    So if a given implementation of function H is simulating a different >>>>>> number of steps from another implementation, by definition they
    are not
    the same algorithm.
    Well, they are similar programs with a different parameter.


    The different number of steps merely confirms that
    DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.


    No, they prove that HHH fails to reach the final halt state.
    Not reaching the final halt state because the computer is switched
    off, or because the simulation is aborted, does not change the fact
    that a final halt state is specified in this input.

    It is unreachable by DD correctly simulated by HHH
    and reachable by DD correctly simulated by HHH1.

    AS usual incorrect claims without evidence.
    Indeed, it is reachable by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
    But it is unreachable when simulated by HHH, because HHH fails, by doing
    a premature abort.
    You cannot prove that HHH is correct by assuming it is correct.
    That is invalid circular logic.


    HHH and HHH1 are identical except that DD calls HHH(DD)
    (in recursive emulation) and does not call HHH1(DD) at all.


    And HHH fails, because it does a premature abort, where HHH1 continues
    at that point and reaches the final halt state.
    HHH ignores the conditional branch instructions during the recursion, so
    that it is blind for the fact that one cycle later another branch will
    be followed. The recursion is finite, but HHH is made blind and pretends
    that what it does not see does not exist.
    Most of us stopped this attitude at the age of 4.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)