Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches
 its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it
 does since it is a decider.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:20:35 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <900c46344eb727132f9ae650dd7bda1b3fa7100a@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
 <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
 <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@i2pn2.org>
 <v9455t$im42$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ac18da75f5f8e4bcaf17800919bb5dc2658d33c@i2pn2.org>
 <v955rd$o1gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <adc1aa9dbcaab1112f613fb262b17b64a11619a1@i2pn2.org>
 <v96dji$8lqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <352096a93343dd1c5614d27c5e300864b48e2698@i2pn2.org>
 <v96fhf$90t7$1@dont-email.me>
 <6b16c88705f6c0b6a82a454f8d18c5ea9d665a02@i2pn2.org>
 <v96h4j$d1aa$1@dont-email.me>
 <ef112180e1a888b65fba51c8aa921a3858001d01@i2pn2.org>
 <v96j0b$d94c$1@dont-email.me>
 <c7ee6bc3691887c493aa9a00c49610fa46bc8fab@i2pn2.org>
 <v96k5b$dggm$1@dont-email.me>
 <14c242a78e47e9cc61ac50289c3c9af83d6b9f3b@i2pn2.org>
 <v96m13$dl6k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 11:20:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2084912"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v96m13$dl6k$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6111
Lines: 105

On 8/9/24 11:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/24 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2024 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/24 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/24 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
>>>>>>>>>>> we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, 
>>>>>>>>>> and that one isn't a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to keep getting away
>>>>>>>>> with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
>>>>>>>>> emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
>>>>>>>>> it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>>>> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, I guess you don't understand English.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where did I say that simulating N instructions correctly is not 
>>>>>>>> simulating ANY instructions correctly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Shown above*
>>>>>>> "But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input..."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, becuase to correctly emulate, you need to correct emulate 
>>>>>> EVERY instruction, not just some of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you defining whole notion simulating termination analyzers
>>>>> as incorrect even though professor Sipser has agreed that the
>>>>> simulation need not be complete.
>>>>
>>>> No, they just need to do the job right.
>>>>
>>>> But it needs to prove that the CORRECT SIMULATION, which would be 
>>>> complete, doesn't ever reach a final state. T
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> You already know that a complete simulation of DDD
>>> by a pure x86 emulator cannot possibly reach its
>>> "return" instruction halt state.
>>
>> Of course it can. as long as it isn't HHH, and the HHH that DDD was 
>> paired with gives an answer.
>>
>> Your problem is thinking the only simulator allowed is HHH.
>>
> 
> When HHH reports that its input cannot possibly reach
> the "return" instruction halt state of this input it
> is correct. HHH only computes the mapping from its input
> to the behavior that this input specifies.

No, the "input" is the full program, and even you have admitted that 
when that program is run directly it halts.

Thus, the "mapping" it NEEDS to try to compute says that input Halts.

The fact that HHH aborts its partial emulation before it gets there 
doesn't mean that the program doesn't get there.

Thus, HHH reports incorrectly, because its programmer doesn't understand 
that the code for DDD actually included the code for HHH, and thus HHH 
must treat that call like a call to itself, and thus know that if it 
will return (which it will if it is a decider), then the code it is 
simulating will return from the call.


> 
> All of your every attempt to rebut this were anchored
> in the strawman deception. I am beginning to have no
> doubts that you are a deceiver. For your soul's sake
> I hope this is an ADD issue and not willful deception.
> 
> 

No, you are just showing you don't understand the difference between a 
partial emulation of a program and the full behavior of it. OR maybe 
what the original question was asking.

This seems to be rooted in you inability to distinguish fantasy from 
reality.

Sorry, you are just proving to the world how stupid you are, and that 
you can't see how stupid you are, which is the worse type of stupid.