Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:11:55 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e827aa40b75b25d45b2ae0503b15928bd038c27f@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
 <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
 <d69b59d8743dd2713e16ca41604ff30b4741b82d@i2pn2.org>
 <GcudnQRbD7HyPNv6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi72fe$dbk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vi76pj$106j$2@dont-email.me>
 <db87472521a4e553e992c6933a235dec24fb002f@i2pn2.org>
 <vi8g7t$85ij$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee397fde844b6e8f2266885eb1b657ad4da768f8@i2pn2.org>
 <via50f$ju6v$1@dont-email.me>
 <349430b1223591beb2ebea42b5f3a9e64ea8d795@i2pn2.org>
 <via6qe$ju6v$5@dont-email.me>
 <f4f759fcc2f0b701a91e38062c25d16534e470af@i2pn2.org>
 <via804$kfnn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39d1fae0d0e03ceb82a6a7c722581d5e84d4998f@i2pn2.org>
 <via9kk$kpf2$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f73ca664f7017ea34651a485a4bd3602e9cbe57@i2pn2.org>
 <vilrih$3n2q7$2@dont-email.me>
 <b961b7e79a85fcb3bbd058930fef41e582f7acdd@i2pn2.org>
 <vio31i$dg23$1@dont-email.me>
 <95dfcfe45b6318fbe82dd954fcb693d5b8841081@i2pn2.org>
 <viq9mc$11m2c$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 00:11:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1311714"; 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: <viq9mc$11m2c$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5188
Lines: 74

On 12/4/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/4/2024 9:32 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 03 Dec 2024 17:08:34 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:35:16 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 11:32 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:07:16 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:47:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 10:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:16:15 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2024 4:04 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:15:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2024 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If HHH halts at all, it needs to return that HHH halts.
>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>>>>> You can fail to understand that, you can lie about that, it
>>>>>>>>> remains immutably a verified fact none-the-less.
>>>>>>>> Yes, HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>> The code proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD why lie?
>>>>>> The code proves that HHH aborts.
>>>>> You said:
>>>>>    >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>>>> That is WRONG !!!
>>>>> HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.
>>>> We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>>> Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you try to change
>>> the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>>>   >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>>> That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>> I'm not changing the subject. HHH is a decider, right?
>>
> 
> We have not begun to get to that point of the
> conversation yet. We have only been talking
> about the emulation of DDD by HHH for three months.

But you aren't going to be allowed to change the behavior of the HHH 
that you talk about.

> 
> _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]

Which doesn't include "HHH, so your HHH to emulate the "input" must be 
impure, and thus not meet your requirements.

> 
> *We must go though my proof ONE-STEP-AT-A-TIME*
> 
> DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
> the x86 language cannot possibly reach it "ret" instruction
> whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
> 

But the DDD you show can *NOT* be emulated more than 4 instructions by a 
pure function, so your claim is just bogus.

You are just proving that you don't undetstand what you are talking 
about, show9ing you are nothing but a damned pathological liar.