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 19:23:51 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <757ab51506e1b5f3de8c4629689d72296662c0a8@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@i2pn2.org>
 <vhnj19$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 00:23:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3707137"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhr5na$1d1eq$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6891
Lines: 114

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.

The "pathology" of the relationship doesn't change the rules for how 
anythibng works, just makes it that a simple emulation can't handle the 
problem.

You still have the problem that your DDD isn't a valid input for a 
semantic decider as it isn't a semantically valid input, having missing 
code.

You are just proving your utter stupidity, and that you believe that 
lies are allowed in logic. Sorry, but that is the fact, the input to a 
semantic decider MUST be a COMPLETE set of code, including the code of 
all sub-functions used.

Until you define what you "alternate" system is based on, you are stuck 
with those rules, and are just proving that you are a pathological liar 
by ignoring them,