Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko 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: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:49:25 +0200 Organization: - Lines: 220 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: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:49:26 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4b2f92d929bfeadea53f41c21fd801ec"; logging-data="1095778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NHzVEOgmnTJ1bzmAO+hp3" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:TENkzLizK1wN4j0xS8IKgzOSqic= Bytes: 12528 On 2024-11-28 16:17:51 +0000, olcott said: > On 11/28/2024 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-11-27 13:23:58 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 11/27/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-11-27 04:34:55 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, you are just demonstrating that your "logic" is based on the >>>>>>>>>> meaningless use of buzzwords that you don't understand, but can parrot >>>>>>>>>> their unlearned meaning, but have no idea how to actually use. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *As you already admitted below* >>>>>>>>>>> when N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH >>>>>>>>>>> DDD cannot reach past its call to HHH (statement) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But that was for the DDD that INCLUDED HHH as part of it, which you >>>>>>>>>> have now made clear is NOT what you consider DDD to be. And for that >>>>>>>>>> case DDD[n] calls HHH[n] (where HHH[n] is the version of HHH that does >>>>>>>>>> only n steps of emulation) and while we can say that HHH[n[ does not >>>>>>>>>> emulate DDD[n] to its final state, that property is NOT a property of >>>>>>>>>> of DDD[n], but of HHH[n] and DDD[n] as its input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That every DDD[n] calls its HHH[n] in recursive emulation >>>>>>>>> conclusively proves that no DDD[n] emulated by HHH[n] halts, >>>>>>>>> thus each HHH[n] is correct to reject its input as non halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But every HHH[n] aborts its emulaton and returns, and thus DDD[n] >>>>>>>> halts, and thus HHH is INCORRECT to call its input non-halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You are a stupid liar* >>>>>>> You know that halting means reaching a final state and you >>>>>>> know that no input to HHH can possibly reach its final state. >>>>>>> So you aren't just a liar, you are a stupid one. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And you should know that "Halting" is a property of Turing Machines / >>>>>> Computations / Progrzms / completely defined function and the like ONLY. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have already proved that halting is a property of C functions. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========