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: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:02:20 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhf257$16a9p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhg8qq$1duv3$1@dont-email.me> <vhho9r$1pkdu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhjkn0$28t3s$2@dont-email.me> <vhkbia$1md6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhlmbv$9l59$2@dont-email.me> <vhmthl$j0ao$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhnjqm$mjea$2@dont-email.me> <vhpffl$13p8e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhqcg0$18k1i$1@dont-email.me> <vhs21l$1kglp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhsncn$1nu6d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 15:02:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3790175"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhsncn$1nu6d$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6282
Lines: 119

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, and thus since THIS HHH (if it answers) aborts its 
simulation and returns, then the HHH that DDD calls will also abort and 
return to DDD and thus DDD will halt.

DDD can't call "a set of functions", and we can not run a "set of 
functions", thus DDD is also an infinite set of functions, each pair 
with a given HHH that it calls.

So, it appears that you logic is built on an equivocation of having two 
different meanings for the terms HHH and DDD, and from that you build 
your strawman.