Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches
 its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it
 does since it is a decider.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 22:56:36 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <14c242a78e47e9cc61ac50289c3c9af83d6b9f3b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
 <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
 <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@i2pn2.org>
 <v9455t$im42$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ac18da75f5f8e4bcaf17800919bb5dc2658d33c@i2pn2.org>
 <v955rd$o1gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <adc1aa9dbcaab1112f613fb262b17b64a11619a1@i2pn2.org>
 <v96dji$8lqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <352096a93343dd1c5614d27c5e300864b48e2698@i2pn2.org>
 <v96fhf$90t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b16c88705f6c0b6a82a454f8d18c5ea9d665a02@i2pn2.org>
 <v96h4j$d1aa$1@dont-email.me>
 <ef112180e1a888b65fba51c8aa921a3858001d01@i2pn2.org>
 <v96j0b$d94c$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7ee6bc3691887c493aa9a00c49610fa46bc8fab@i2pn2.org>
 <v96k5b$dggm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 02:56:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2032647"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v96k5b$dggm$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5560
Lines: 98

On 8/9/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
>>>>>>>>> we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, 
>>>>>>>> and that one isn't a decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to keep getting away
>>>>>>> with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
>>>>>>> emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
>>>>>>> it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I guess you don't understand English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where did I say that simulating N instructions correctly is not 
>>>>>> simulating ANY instructions correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Shown above*
>>>>> "But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input..."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, becuase to correctly emulate, you need to correct emulate 
>>>> EVERY instruction, not just some of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you defining whole notion simulating termination analyzers
>>> as incorrect even though professor Sipser has agreed that the
>>> simulation need not be complete.
>>
>> No, they just need to do the job right.
>>
>> But it needs to prove that the CORRECT SIMULATION, which would be 
>> complete, doesn't ever reach a final state. T
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> You already know that a complete simulation of DDD
> by a pure x86 emulator cannot possibly reach its
> "return" instruction halt state.

Of course it can. as long as it isn't HHH, and the HHH that DDD was 
paired with gives an answer.

Your problem is thinking the only simulator allowed is HHH.

> 
> What makes an algorithm necessarily much more ignorant
> than you?

YOU.

> 
> It only needs to correctly predict the behavior of
> the complete simulation. Just like you and I, it
> does not have to do this complete simulation to make
> this correct prediction.
> 

Right, and if HHH aborts and returns, then the COMPLETE simulation of 
the DDD that calls that HHH will see it reaching  the final state.

You just don't know what a program is, so you forget that the HHH that 
DDD calls is part of it, or you are just lying that the input CAN be 
emulated for more than 4 instruction by a pure function.

Remember, a pure function can not use ANY external values as data other 
than the input given, not even its own code.

IF you try to define that the contents of that address are "HHH", you 
need to define WHAT THAT ACTUALLY IS, and thus you only have that one 
HHH in every case, not your infinite set.

You just don't understand how that is a requirement, because 
requirements don't seem to make sense to you since they keep you from 
your lies.

Sorry, you are just too stupid to see how stupid you are, and that is 
the worse type of stupid there is.