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: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 08:02:10 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d69b59d8743dd2713e16ca41604ff30b4741b82d@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>
 <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
 <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:02:11 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="19137"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 11675
Lines: 210

On 11/25/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/24/2024 11:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========