Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating
 itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2c3e624c991637a3350c0eb050fb5632df5fe615@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
	<c8e35b5f542012b2d798e7fe2afc3004298a2aa5@i2pn2.org>
	<vhdn96$r2jp$1@dont-email.me>
	<907b6e45c74720036b5f42c503d76ac426a71c92@i2pn2.org>
	<vhe69i$tuln$2@dont-email.me>
	<622e5aa555a9941d4cdb292d1e3e54e687e7b547@i2pn2.org>
	<vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
	<254d3e7be0462ba8225ec0eb4804941ea635770d@i2pn2.org>
	<vheecn$12v3p$1@dont-email.me>
	<031e34cbeacc2a7b5145fd1f25ccee588e8cfb43@i2pn2.org>
	<vhg1oe$1cfbe$2@dont-email.me>
	<aa621f0677187fad3eb5b7f20715247c3ffbd61e@i2pn2.org>
	<vhg39s$1csnf$1@dont-email.me>
	<b4aade7ae93d862bd313e00abe20deab78124e18@i2pn2.org>
	<vhg7jg$1dmht$1@dont-email.me>
	<d8a9608b7ae74fde0e364d794faeeed25dd2e227@i2pn2.org>
	<vhi881$1sm67$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:32:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3184812"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5100
Lines: 64

Am Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:44:17 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 11/19/2024 5:56 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:21:04 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 11/18/2024 1:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT PROGRAM WHEN I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as
>>>>>>>>>>>> both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>>>> No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
>>>>>>>>>>> termination analysis of C functions.
>>>>>>>>>> Look again at what they process. C functions that include all
>>>>>>>>>> the functions they call.
>>>>>>>>> You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done on
>>>>>>>>> programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on pages 24-27
>>>>>>>>> of the PDF of this paper.
>>>>>>>>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
>>>>>>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/
972440.pdf
>>>>>>>> The problem here is you are mixing language between domains.
>>>>>>> I said the termination analysis applies to C functions you said
>>>>>>> that it does not. No weasel words around it YOU WERE WRONG!
>>>>>> Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones
>>>>>> that include everything that is part of them. Those things, in
>>>>>> computation theory, are called PROGRAMS.
>>>>> The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
>>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>>>> Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.
>>>> They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.
>>>> NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling non-
>>>> leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.
>>> Since the halting problem is defined to have the input call its own
>>> termination analyzer and the termination analyzer is itself required
>>> to halt then any sequence of this input that would prevent it from
>>> halting IS A NON-HALTING SEQUENCE THAT MUST BE ABORTED AND CANNOT BE
>>> ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
>> What happens when we run HHH(HHH)?
> The ONLY thing that it relevant

Whatever. I was asking a different question. Furthermore, what happens
when we run HHH1(DDD), HHH1(DDD1), HHH(DDD1)?

> DDD emulated by HHH1 DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT HHH1 must emulate itself
> emulating DDD.
Of course not. DDD specifies to call HHH, regardless of the simulator.

-- 
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.