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 10:35:46 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <34f6cc9c64b89fb00c3376d717de709179971cda@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vho85f$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>
 <2c3ad46739bbaf7bb82f074765d214ffc700f8b1@i2pn2.org>
 <vhrklt$1iqgq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9eb145f6bcb01720b3db44c93824d0f82380374f@i2pn2.org>
 <vhsrlq$1ojus$2@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 15:35:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3793191"; 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: <vhsrlq$1ojus$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9458
Lines: 163

On 11/23/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/22/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> 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. 
>>>
>>> *a copy of my quote above that you have repeatedly denied*
>>
>> I haven't "denied" it, I have proven it to be nonsense.
>>
>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
>>>
>>
>> And the problem is that since your DDD don't contain the code for HHH, 
> 
> Then DDD simply calls HHH(DDD) in its shared memory space.
> Why act so stupidly?
> 
> 

In other words, you admit that HHH isn't a pure function.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========