Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 09:03:50 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org> <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org> <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org> <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org> 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: 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 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 ==========