Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:49:48 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 21:49:51 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f412909ad9be764d47e6636298420ea3"; logging-data="871293"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WNPq1vGSypwHoVA5Qcnai" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:8i55gwiI9gnbfcN4teMbwl/9P7I= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241117-2, 11/17/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4127 On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> > > Except your DDD *CAN'T BE EMULTATED* by *ANY* HHH, as it is IMPOSSIBLE > to emulate the Call HHH per the x86 language from your input, as the > data isn't tnere. > In patent law this is called incorporation by reference. I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH. You already know that it is ridiculously stupid that you suggest I should write them all down. When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its input then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It is despicably dishonest of you to say that when N instructions have been correctly emulated that no instructions have been correctly emulating. >> 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. >> > > But since NO HHH can do the first part of your requirements, that of > actually emulating the input, you are just proved to be an lying idiot. > > Also, Computation Theory isn't interested in Subjective Non-semantic > problems like yours, but only objective problems, especially those that > are semantic (which means one that actually IS based on the FINAL > behavior, after an unbounded number of steps) properties. > > Your ignorance of that fact just shows your utter stupidity. > > It doesn't what the emulation of HHH is, if it is only finite, only the > unbounded emulation of that input (Which will be halting if that DDD is > based on an HHH that answers after finite time). > > THe HHH that DOES a semantic emulation unfortunately never answers, so > fails to be the needed decider. > > So, you just struck out twice. > > You then keep on lying about it, which gets your ejected from the logic > pool.. > > Sorry, that is just the facts, you are showing you are just too stupid > to have your idea have any merits, and thus even if there was something > to your ideas, you have probably successfully killed them. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer