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 16:36:06 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1faff0266d203c301ed017aa69027ffd166f32ad@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhf257$16a9p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhg8qq$1duv3$1@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 21:36:06 -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
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vhg8qq$1duv3$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3190
Lines: 58

On 11/18/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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.

No, you keep on changing them, after all, you say there is one set of 
code, but an infinite set of pairings, and even though for every one of 
them the HHH that DDD calls gives the wrong answer, you want to define 
it as correct.

YOu are the jackass.

> 
>> and an input that
>> specifies a halting program and give that to the program called to HHH.
>> Obviously the words "every DDD" and "any HHH" adn "the input to HHH" are
>> intended to be restricted to some smaller ranges but no restrictions are
>> specified.
>>
> 
>