Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:00:44 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <d575206d11b6ca9827a7245566e3d2a990cc0de2@i2pn2.org>
 <vhm7j5$c0mm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 04:00:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3439001"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhm7j5$c0mm$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5360
Lines: 111

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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> You forget how many times you have posted the link to your "fully 
>> functioning code"?
>>
>> You can't have it both ways, either that *IS* the code of HHH.
>>
> 
> My code is one example of the infinite set of every possible
> HHH that emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86
> language.

But it gets the wrong answer for the halting problem, as DDD dpes halt.

> 
> My example code sets a kind of mathematical induction like
> pattern AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
> 

Nope, "code" can't be an "induction pattern", that is just a category error,

Clearly you don't understand what an induction pattern IS.

> DDD emulated by HHH N times never reaches its "return"
> instruction final state for any value of N. From this
> we can infer that this remains true for infinite emulation.
> 

But the emulation of DDD by HHH isn't the proper criteria, and isn't 
even a valid criteria for a decider.

A partial emulation not reaching the final state does not prove that the 
input is non-halting.

You are just proving your stupidity.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
> 
> 

So, how does your example meet those requirement.

All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar that has no idea 
what he is talking about.