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: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 12:18:20 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@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$2@dont-email.me> <vhmthl$j0ao$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhnjqm$mjea$2@dont-email.me> <vhpffl$13p8e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhqcg0$18k1i$1@dont-email.me> <vhs21l$1kglp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhsncn$1nu6d$1@dont-email.me>
 <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org>
 <vhsri7$1ojus$1@dont-email.me>
 <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org>
 <vht1c8$1pgbs$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org>
 <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 17:18:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3945002"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11961
Lines: 234

On 11/24/24 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/23/2024 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/23/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/23/2024 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/23/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/23/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-22 16:45:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-21 15:32:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-20 22:03:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you may assume that I was confused by your lack of 
>>>>>>>>>>>> clarity and
>>>>>>>>>>>> in particular by your bad choice of names.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you clearly state that HHH is not the function HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> in your GitHub repository then I needn't to consider the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> possiblity
>>>>>>>>>>>> that you just triying to deceive by equivcation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH is one concrete example of an infinite set of instances
>>>>>>>>>>> such that DDD is emulated by HHH N times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That sentence says that there is only one HHH, contradicting your
>>>>>>>>>> earlier statement that HHH is a generic term for every member 
>>>>>>>>>> of some
>>>>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You seem to be a damned liar: "infinite set of instances"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean you lied when you said "one concrete example"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One element of an infinite set does not say there
>>>>>>> is no infinite set. Is says there is an infinite set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But one element of an infinite set is not the infinite set.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just showing that your logic is based on proven incorrect 
>>>>>> set theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IF HHH is an ELEMENT of the set, then it is that one element for 
>>>>>> the entire evaluation, 
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar:
>>>>>
>>>>> A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base case,
>>>>> proves the statement for n=0 without assuming any knowledge of
>>>>> other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if the
>>>>> statement holds for any given case n=k, then it must also hold for
>>>>> the next case n=k+1. These two steps establish that the statement
>>>>> holds for every natural number n. The base case does not necessarily
>>>>> begin with n=0, but often with n=1, and possibly with any fixed 
>>>>> natural
>>>>> number n=N, establishing the truth of the statement for all natural
>>>>> numbers n ≥ N.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And when have you ever provided such a proof for your statement?
>>>>
>>>> NOWHERE
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't even have a logical basis to express your 
>>>> statements in, so you can't do an induction on them.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just demonstrating that your "logic" is based on the 
>> meaningless use of buzzwords that you don't understand, but can parrot 
>> their unlearned meaning, but have no idea how to actually use.
>>
>>>
>>> *As you already admitted below*
>>> when N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH
>>> DDD cannot reach past its call to HHH (statement)
>>
>> But that was for the DDD that INCLUDED HHH as part of it, which you 
>> have now made clear is NOT what you consider DDD to be. And for that 
>> case DDD[n] calls HHH[n] (where HHH[n] is the version of HHH that does 
>> only n steps of emulation) and while we can say that HHH[n[ does not 
>> emulate DDD[n] to its final state, that property is NOT a property of 
>> of DDD[n], but of HHH[n] and DDD[n] as its input.
> 
> That every DDD[n] calls its HHH[n] in recursive emulation
> conclusively proves that no DDD[n] emulated by HHH[n] halts,
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========