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: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:58:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2c3ad46739bbaf7bb82f074765d214ffc700f8b1@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhm7j5$c0mm$2@dont-email.me>
 <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@i2pn2.org>
 <vhnj19$mjea$1@dont-email.me>
 <edab5a897ccdda3deba5af968da56f5fc3718936@i2pn2.org>
 <vho85f$pvmk$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b836bd0c44eb0fb0d01ac1401bde229813cef20@i2pn2.org>
 <vhq5np$179o9$1@dont-email.me>
 <fb0b8f5d2d849d9934b95381e29bff0982684697@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqbua$18g1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d83447ce451abd731795728fd71bec5ec103e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqig2$19n3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <584da8e6c06e8b9b12e8d5779a6e2840137af532@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqjdr$19n3n$2@dont-email.me>
 <f9e47c3a69fcbf8086ee78e3cac231a2b7a9dc7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr29f$1cf6i$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f1c5d657f9ebf9a7b5d3f09c34dd00acb5ec694@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr5na$1d1eq$1@dont-email.me>
 <757ab51506e1b5f3de8c4629689d72296662c0a8@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr8mf$1d88t$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0faedefdc505b0a232ba57cdba232bdeb7f8522@i2pn2.org>
 <vhrdcq$1e2ro$1@dont-email.me>
 <2932f006c68fd9c0e08cfdbaf107819b66294f00@i2pn2.org>
 <vhrh08$1ej9o$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 03:59:00 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3725211"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vhrh08$1ej9o$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 10022
Lines: 187

On 11/22/24 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/22/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/22/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/24 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/22/24 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 12:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 12:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:36:25 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:50:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 6:20 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:19:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:11 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:19:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/24 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it gets the wrong answer for the halting 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, as DDD dpes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever. DDD halts and HHH should return that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS NOT THE SAME INSTANCE OF DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All instances of DDD behave the same (if it is a pure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HHH called from it doesn't switch behaviour by a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only HHH is required to be a pure function, DDD is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly allowed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be any damn thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't have side effects, such as reading a static 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Root variable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The static root variable has not one damn thing to do 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does. If it were always set to True, all instances of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would abort and halt. Why else would it be there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABORT/NOT ABORT
>>>>>>>>>>>>> FOR THREE FREAKING MONTHS. WAKE THE F-CK UP.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DDD EMULATED BY HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> REACHING ITS FINAL HALT STATE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, does HHH abort or not abort it emulation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Without including HHH in the input, at least implicitly, they 
>>>>>>>>>> couldn't have done what you said, so you are admitting that 
>>>>>>>>>> the actual input DDD must include the code of HHH, or you are 
>>>>>>>>>> just a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just trying to get away with changing the subject.
>>>>>>>>> The question is: Can DDD emulated by any HHH possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The question (in computation theory) CAN'T be that, is it isn't 
>>>>>>>> a valid question, as it isn't an objective quesiton about just DDD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away pretending that
>>>>>>> the fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship to
>>>>>>> HHH can be simply ignored. How is that not stupid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but it does mean that HHH needs to CORRECTLY handle that 
>>>>>> relationship, which is that it needs to understand that the HHH 
>>>>>> that DDD calls will do exactly what it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Always lacks enough execution trace data to do
>>>>> what the outermost HHH does.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exfept that it DOES when you apply the definition of Semantic, which 
>>>> means executed/emulated to completion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many times are you going to insist on the stupid nitwit
>>> idea of emulating a non-terminating input to completion?
>>> *DDD emulated by HHH HAS NO FREAKING COMPLETION NITWIT*
>>>
>>
>> How many times will you just refuse to accept the DEFINITION?
>>
>> And, how many times will you just ignore that the below input can not 
>> be emulated past the call HHH instructioon.
>>
> 
> That is what you have been denying.

No, You have been LYING by having your HHH go past it. By your 
definition of DDD as just the "C Function" it is IMPOSSIBLE to correct 
emulate past the call instruction as there is no defined behavior 
specified by the input.

That means your HHH is NOT the "pure function" you claim it to be, as it 
has some other input that it is using to go past there.

Therefore, you are just admitting to being a LIAR about HHH "Correctly 
emulating" the input.

> 
>>> _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]
>>>
>>
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========