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: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:32:15 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <95307223922b954c3b8faa93bc23515503799ce5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <286747edde7812d05b1bdf4f59af1cffdd44e95a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdktc$qirt$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3fe85b499b799f440d722c0433bab69edf2e289@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe661$tuln$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbd95d14a4b405724f145aa6144898bdfd3975ce@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe95v$ue1m$1@dont-email.me>
 <779e20cb36e226d2d3515fb62c5c8fa7b8e22d05@i2pn2.org>
 <vhfgks$18unc$1@dont-email.me>
 <f1c860093e9a1b497d3c335625330cd13936a054@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1il$1cfbe$1@dont-email.me>
 <4588f439c2cf659f139ac382988bee502f6374cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg3vm$1csnf$2@dont-email.me>
 <39426a4d13101b96c08d905495868385709db185@i2pn2.org>
 <vhgair$1e8jl$2@dont-email.me>
 <0d8a4c4697f46e553da8ac252ff6077fe47206b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vhgh9v$1f3se$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 01:32:15 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3123616"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vhgh9v$1f3se$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6867
Lines: 135

On 11/18/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/18/24 4:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/2024 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 8:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I referred to every element of an infinite set of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encodings of HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they 
>>>>>>>>>> simulate?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No I do not mean that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then your arguement is based on an equivocation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its
>>>>>>>>> own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing
>>>>>>>>> to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long
>>>>>>>>> as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according
>>>>>>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the behavior DOES depend on if that HHH returns.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, your subjective, non-semantic property of "emulated 
>>>>>>>> by HHH" is just a meaningless term, so doesn't really mean 
>>>>>>>> anything, so your statement is just nonsense anyway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are a damned liar trying to get away with lying about
>>>>>>> the effect of the pathological relationship that DDD specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you are a just a damned liar making claims without any form 
>>>>>> of actual logic behind them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have ANY source that backs your claims about what you claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DEFECTION FOR BRAINS
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates
>>>>> itself emulating DDD such that no such DDD can ever
>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*
>>>>>    From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a
>>>>>    program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with 
>>>>> that
>>>>>    same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
>>>>>    program has some of the same character as an interpreter: it 
>>>>> applies
>>>>>    to texts through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we 
>>>>> apply
>>>>>    a halting program to a program text that includes a call to that 
>>>>> same
>>>>>    halting program with that same text as argument, then we have an
>>>>>    infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15)
>>>>>
>>>>> [5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 
>>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, 
>>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in 
>>>>> Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note, HHH is not a "interpreter" tasked with recreating the behavior 
>>>> of the input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An emulator is isomorphic to an interpreter shit-for-brains.
>>
>> But both are only that if they never stop.
>>
> 
> No shit-for-brains that is not true.
> An emulator is ALWAYS isomorphic to an interpreter.

Where did I say it wasn't.



> 
>> HHH is not an "interpreter" or an "emulator" it is a decider, just like 
> 
> HHH <is> an emulator shit-for-brains. That it is more
> that an emulator does not mean it is not an emulator.

No it isn't, it is a decider based on PARTIAL emulation.

You just don't know what the words mean.

> 
> Not only is HHH an emulator it is a complete emulator
> it correctly emulates the whole set of x86 instructions
> that are in Halt7.obj.

Nope, it stops part way.

Sorry, complete doesn't mean the whole instruction set, but complete 
means going until the final instruction.

I guess you never had a COMPLETE INSTRUCTION in what you talk about as 
there are so many holes in your knowledge.

> 
>> all halt deciders / termination analyzers. It may use partial 
>> emulation as a method, but it fails to meet the definition of a full 
>> emulator.
>>
> 
> No shit-for-brains. Your severe brain damage keeps
> insisting that a non-terminating input be emulated
> completely. It emulates terminating inputs completely.
> 

Nope. Proven by the fact that DDD *IS* a "terminating input" as proven 
by the emulation of HHH1

Sorry, HHH can't blame is code for its failure to emulate the input 
correctly and completely, and thus gets the wrong answer.

You who just talks about POOP as it is was fact.