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 --- partial
 simulation never reaches its halt state, but the actual behavior of the
 actual program does
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 19:46:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d981db697b2b07a5f0dd4e235709928c6bd3b1b7@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 23:46:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2032646"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4200
Lines: 55

On 8/9/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
>>> its "return" instruction halt state.
>>
>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
>> so that does not really mean anything.
>>
> 
> Here is something that literally does not mean anything:
> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf["
> 
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
> Has lots of meaning, that does not totally fit together coherently.
> 
> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators.
> 
> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates
> zero to infinity instructions of DDD.
> 
> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*
> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the
> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of
> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.

No, since all the emulator that only emulated a finite number of steps 
did not complete the job, and thus did NOT determine the actual mapping 
of that input, which is determined by RUNNING that DDD, or COMPLETELY 
emulating it, which will see the DDD call HHH(DDD) which will after 
emulationg that finite number of instructions return to DDD which will halt.

> 
> *This one seems to be good*
> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
> the set of positive integers indicating the number of
> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
> 

Right, but any number emulated that is less than the number of 
instructions that particular input needs to have run to reach a final 
state is just INCORRECT, since all the HHH that abort DO create an input 
that will halt in a finite number of steps, just at a value of N bigger 
than the number of steps that HHH emulated.

You just don't understand the question you claim to be answering.