Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
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 14:23:43 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b4aade7ae93d862bd313e00abe20deab78124e18@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c8e35b5f542012b2d798e7fe2afc3004298a2aa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdn96$r2jp$1@dont-email.me>
 <907b6e45c74720036b5f42c503d76ac426a71c92@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe69i$tuln$2@dont-email.me>
 <622e5aa555a9941d4cdb292d1e3e54e687e7b547@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
 <254d3e7be0462ba8225ec0eb4804941ea635770d@i2pn2.org>
 <vheecn$12v3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <031e34cbeacc2a7b5145fd1f25ccee588e8cfb43@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1oe$1cfbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <aa621f0677187fad3eb5b7f20715247c3ffbd61e@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg39s$1csnf$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:23:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3085645"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vhg39s$1csnf$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 6050
Lines: 113

On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will also add, that since you have dropped your 
>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements on HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse 
>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself from previous assumptions) there are MANY HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>>> can complete the emulation, they just fail to be "pure 
>>>>>>>>>>>> functions".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away
>>>>>>>>>>> with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final
>>>>>>>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a 
>>>>>>>>>> "Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
>>>>>>>>> A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT
>>>>>>>>> PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as 
>>>>>>>> both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
>>>>>>> termination analysis of C functions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the 
>>>>>> functions they call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done
>>>>> on programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on
>>>>> pages 24-27 of the PDF of this paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
>>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem here is you are mixing language between domains. 
>>>
>>> I said the termination analysis applies to C functions
>>> you said that it does not. No weasel words around it
>>> YOU WERE WRONG!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones that 
>> include everything that is part of them. Those things, in computation 
>> theory, are called PROGRAMS.
> 
> The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
> 

Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.

They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.

NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling 
non-leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.

Therefore, to match, your input DDD needs to include ALL the code for 
HHH and everything it calls to be handled by this system.


You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.

Sorry, but you reputation is down there at the bottom, and you are just 
smashing it into smaller pieces.

Hope you like things on the hot side, since that seems to be where you 
are headed,