A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.

On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.

No one seems to understand that when a second recursive simulation
is aborted that this will provide the false impression that the
first recursive simulation specifies a halting computation.

It is the same way with infinite recursion.
When the second recursive invocation is aborted
this will provide the false impression that
the first recursive invocation halts.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
>> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>
> [bullshit]

No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine. END
OF STORY.

On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
>> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>
> No one seems to understand that when a second recursive simulation
> is aborted that this will provide the false impression that the
> first recursive simulation specifies a halting computation.

No one seems to understand that when a second recursive barber is shaved
that this will provide the false impression that the first recursive
barber shaves himself.

On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
>>> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>
>> [bullshit]
>
> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine. END
> OF STORY.

There are nuances with the direct execution
of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does specify recursive simulation that
is aborted on its second recursive simulation.
This give the false impression that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/21/24 01:05, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the
>>>> direct execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>>
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
>> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine.
>> END OF STORY.
>
> There are nuances with the direct execution
> of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.

No, there are no nuances here, only bullshit spewing out of your mouth.

A Turing machine/input pair has ONE CORRECT EXECUTION TRACE which is the
trace of its direct execution. All other traces are incorrect.

On 1/20/24 7:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 5:30 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 1/20/24 23:32, olcott wrote:
>>> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the
>>>> direct execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>>>
>>> [bullshit]
>>
>> No olcott seems to understand that a Universal Turing Machine (UTM)
>> behaves isomorphically to the direct execution of an input machine.
>> END OF STORY.
>
> There are nuances with the direct execution
> of Ĥ that you are not paying attention to.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does specify recursive simulation that
> is aborted on its second recursive simulation.
> This give the false impression that Ĥ ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts.
>

It specifies FINITE recursive simulation, that WILL halt in finite time.

The time is just longer than the simulation, so the simulation doesn't
actual prove any results.

On 1/20/24 5:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/20/2024 4:26 PM, immibis wrote:
>> A Universal Turing Machine (UTM) behaves isomorphically to the direct
>> execution of an input machine. x86utm doesn't do that.
>
> No one seems to understand that when a second recursive simulation
> is aborted that this will provide the false impression that the
> first recursive simulation specifies a halting computation.
>

No, no one is saying that JUST because the second recursive simuation is
aborted that the first simulation specifice a halting computation. Test
of that is to actually correctly simulate that input, and see what
happens when the second level is allowed to run. Since it will start a
third level and then the first level aborts the third level and returns
and halts, THAT shows the input is Halting.

> It is the same way with infinite recursion.
> When the second recursive invocation is aborted
> this will provide the false impression that
> the first recursive invocation halts.
>
>
>

But with infinite recursion, if the input is given to a correct
simulation, then the second level continues, and starts a third level,
and because that first level was different then the decider, and DOESN'T
abort its simulation, the whole loop just continue forever.

So the aborting doesn't tell us ANYTHING about the machine being
simulated, it might halt, or it might not. We need to somehow know more
about the machine to make the decision.

This is what makes Halting not a computable problem.