Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:38:28 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <39426a4d13101b96c08d905495868385709db185@i2pn2.org> References: <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org> <779e20cb36e226d2d3515fb62c5c8fa7b8e22d05@i2pn2.org> <4588f439c2cf659f139ac382988bee502f6374cb@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:38:28 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3087137"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4905 Lines: 81 On 11/18/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/18/2024 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 11/18/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/18/2024 8:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 11/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings >>>>>>>>>>> of HHH. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they >>>>>> simulate? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No I do not mean that. >>>> >>>> Then your arguement is based on an equivocation. >>>> >>>>> Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its >>>>> own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing >>>>> to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long >>>>> as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according >>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language. >>>> >>>> Except that the behavior DOES depend on if that HHH returns. >>>> >>>> Of course, your subjective, non-semantic property of "emulated by >>>> HHH" is just a meaningless term, so doesn't really mean anything, so >>>> your statement is just nonsense anyway. >>>> >>> >>> You are a damned liar trying to get away with lying about >>> the effect of the pathological relationship that DDD specifies. >>> >>> >> >> Nope, you are a just a damned liar making claims without any form of >> actual logic behind them. >> >> Do you have ANY source that backs your claims about what you claim? >> > > DEFECTION FOR BRAINS > DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates > itself emulating DDD such that no such DDD can ever > reach its "return" instruction final halt state. > > *Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did* >   From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a >   program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that >   same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting >   program has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies >   to texts through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply >   a halting program to a program text that includes a call to that same >   halting program with that same text as argument, then we have an >   infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15) > > [5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 > Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe > Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and > Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 > https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf > Note, HHH is not a "interpreter" tasked with recreating the behavior of the input. Thus, the arguement does not hold. If HHH aborts, then the CORRECT interpreation of the input is non-halting, as DDD calls HHH which will return to DDD and thus DDD Halts. HHH is just an incorrect decider, because it wasn't smart enough to handle this non-pathological case.