Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:54:32 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 170 Message-ID: References: <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org> <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:54:33 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5508b794280b8af0c3fe35e9b983404"; logging-data="1884540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B+3BzDZWL07KF63cMUjyx" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:G6CNUjxceyUt5svdSX0FBHg5q38= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241123-4, 11/23/2024), Outbound message Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 8527 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 > > Your problem is you don't even have a logical basis to express your > statements in, so you can't do an induction on them. > *As you already admitted below* when N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH DDD cannot reach past its call to HHH (statement) Thus the induction result is proven: "the (above) statement holds for every natural number n." On 11/22/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 11/22/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:> > > And, how many times will you just ignore that > the below input can not be emulated past the > call HHH instructioon. > >> _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 is the C function under test. HHH is not the C function under test. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========