Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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 16:35:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0d8a4c4697f46e553da8ac252ff6077fe47206b8@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdktc$qirt$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3fe85b499b799f440d722c0433bab69edf2e289@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe661$tuln$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbd95d14a4b405724f145aa6144898bdfd3975ce@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe95v$ue1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <779e20cb36e226d2d3515fb62c5c8fa7b8e22d05@i2pn2.org>
 <vhfgks$18unc$1@dont-email.me>
 <f1c860093e9a1b497d3c335625330cd13936a054@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1il$1cfbe$1@dont-email.me>
 <4588f439c2cf659f139ac382988bee502f6374cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg3vm$1csnf$2@dont-email.me>
 <39426a4d13101b96c08d905495868385709db185@i2pn2.org>
 <vhgair$1e8jl$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:36:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3100593"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhgair$1e8jl$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5992
Lines: 109

On 11/18/24 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> An emulator is isomorphic to an interpreter shit-for-brains.

But both are only that if they never stop.

HHH is not an "interpreter" or an "emulator" it is a decider, just like 
all halt deciders / termination analyzers. It may use partial emulation 
as a method, but it fails to meet the definition of a full emulator.

So, you are just caught in your lies.

Which is HHH?

Is it an emulator/simulator/interpretor, in which case to do its job it 
must not stop its processing till it reaches an end, or

Is it a decider/analyzer that MUST after finite time stop its processing 
to answer.

It can not be both unless you thing there is a finite but unbounded 
number which will just blow up your logic system to smithereens.

> 
>> 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.
> 
>