Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.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: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:03:50 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <db87472521a4e553e992c6933a235dec24fb002f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhf257$16a9p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhg8qq$1duv3$1@dont-email.me> <vhho9r$1pkdu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhjkn0$28t3s$2@dont-email.me> <vhkbia$1md6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhlmbv$9l59$2@dont-email.me> <vhmthl$j0ao$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhnjqm$mjea$2@dont-email.me> <vhpffl$13p8e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhqcg0$18k1i$1@dont-email.me> <vhs21l$1kglp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhsncn$1nu6d$1@dont-email.me>
 <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org>
 <vhsri7$1ojus$1@dont-email.me>
 <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org>
 <vht1c8$1pgbs$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org>
 <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
 <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
 <d69b59d8743dd2713e16ca41604ff30b4741b82d@i2pn2.org>
 <GcudnQRbD7HyPNv6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi72fe$dbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi76pj$106j$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:03:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="169090"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vi76pj$106j$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 12753
Lines: 239

On 11/27/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/27/2024 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/24/2024 11:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/24 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/23/2024 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/23/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2024 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-22 16:45:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-21 15:32:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-20 22:03:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-20 03:23:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-18 20:42:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "the mapping" on the subject line is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. The subject line
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not specify which mapping and there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> larger context that could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify that. Therefore it should be "a mapping".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-17 18:36:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach the instructions before tha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach the instruction after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach return instruction of HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too vague to be regareded true or false. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfectly possibe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to define two programs and call them DDD and HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a jackass. DDD and HHH have been fully 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for many months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are specified in a way that makes your "every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD" and "any DDD"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad (perhaps even incorrect) use of Common language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I specify the infinite sets with each element numbered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the top of page 2 of my paper. Back in April of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have also specifed that HHH is the program in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GitHub repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I assume that you must be lying about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this because you did not quote where I did this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you may assume that I was confused by your lack of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in particular by your bad choice of names.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you clearly state that HHH is not the function HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your GitHub repository then I needn't to consider the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possiblity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you just triying to deceive by equivcation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is one concrete example of an infinite set of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that DDD is emulated by HHH N times.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That sentence says that there is only one HHH,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contradicting your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earlier statement that HHH is a generic term for every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> member of some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to be a damned liar: "infinite set of instances"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you lied when you said "one concrete example"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One element of an infinite set does not say there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no infinite set. Is says there is an infinite set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But one element of an infinite set is not the infinite set.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing that your logic is based on proven
>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect set theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IF HHH is an ELEMENT of the set, then it is that one element
>>>>>>>>>>>> for the entire evaluation,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Liar:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base
>>>>>>>>>>> case,
>>>>>>>>>>> proves the statement for n=0 without assuming any knowledge of
>>>>>>>>>>> other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> statement holds for any given case n=k, then it must also 
>>>>>>>>>>> hold for
>>>>>>>>>>> the next case n=k+1. These two steps establish that the 
>>>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>>> holds for every natural number n. The base case does not
>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>> begin with n=0, but often with n=1, and possibly with any fixed
>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>> number n=N, establishing the truth of the statement for all 
>>>>>>>>>>> natural
>>>>>>>>>>> numbers n ≥ N.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And when have you ever provided such a proof for your statement?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NOWHERE
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========