Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 09:24:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me> <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:24:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec0d1ee71ceed677a7540299f25b1a73";
	logging-data="729766"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18RdfS9f7mt8VajOoiq9fFs"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:n5EBtifQYfnyXZ4+PEIZGHcmWZo=
In-Reply-To: <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5949

On 8/10/2024 9:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 10.aug.2024 om 15:37 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/10/2024 8:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 14:06 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/10/2024 6:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>>>>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
>>>>>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
>>>>>>>>> so that does not really mean anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is something that literally does not mean anything:
>>>>>>>> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf["
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks like encrypted text that might mean something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some
>>>>>>> inside knowledge or convention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates
>>>>>>>> zero to infinity instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That doesn't restrict much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*
>>>>>>>> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the
>>>>>>>> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of
>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *This one seems to be good*
>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
>>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of
>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of
>>>>>>> instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not
>>>>>>> seem reasonable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
>>>>>
>>>>> I thopught HHH was a deider?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of
>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates.
>>>>>
>>>>> And only those element of the set that either reach the final 
>>>>> state, or simulate forever are "correct" emulators of the whole 
>>>>> program, suitable to show halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In other words even though it is dead obvious to
>>>> us that a complete simulation of DDD simulated by HHH
>>>
>>> is impossible, because HHH is programmed to abort and, therefore, it 
>>> is unable to do a complete simulation.
>>
>> A complete simulation of DDD by a pure x86 emulator
>> named HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>> instruction halt state.
> 
> Indeed, HHH fails to reach its own halt state. HHH cannot possibly 
> simulate itself up to its halt state.
> Which proves that the simulation is incomplete and, therefore, incorrect.
> 

That an emulation of an input is necessary correct no matter
what-the-Hell it does as long as it conforms to the semantics
of the x86 language is either over your head or you persistently
lie about it.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer