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 09:56:27 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f1c860093e9a1b497d3c335625330cd13936a054@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:56:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3053388"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vhfgks$18unc$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5168
Lines: 98

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.

> 
>>>>>>> When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its input
>>>>>>> then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It is despicably
>>>>>>> dishonest of you to say that when N instructions have been correctly
>>>>>>> emulated that no instructions have been correctly emulating.
>>
>> Then not all instructions have been simulated correctly.
> 
> It is ridiculously stupid to require a non-halting input to be
> emulated completely because of the requirement that HHH itself
> must halt.

But that it the definition of Non-Halting.

HHH doesn't need to do it, but it needs to answer about the results of 
the machine that does it,

> 
> All emulating termination analyzers are required to correctly
> PREDICT whether or not an unlimited emulation of their input
> would cause their own non-termination.

Right, and they need to be CORRECT, and the emulation they are 
predictiong is NOT their own (unless that *IS* unbounded).

Since the only thing that *HAS* objective halting behavior is a complete 
program with a fully defined HHH that it is calling, if that HHH doesn't 
do a complete emulation, then it needs to be answering about the 
emulation done by something other than itself.

> 
> When someone (that knows better) insists that this emulation
> must be complete they merely make a complete jackass of themselves.
> 

Nope, YOU make the jackass of yourself by saying definitions don't matter.

You are just proving that your concept of logic allows for lies.

> 
>>
>>>>>> I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no
>>>>>> instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct
>>>>>> emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of
>>>>>> halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded
>>>>>> number of steps.
>>>> No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number
>>>> of steps that makes it non-halting.
>>>
>>> It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps.
>>
>> ???
>> You can continue to simulate an infinite loop forever.
>>
> 
> The violates the design requirement that an emulating termination
> analyzer must itself halt.
> 

And your HHH violates the design requirement that the answer matches the 
unbounded emulaiton of the input.

All you are doing is CONFIRMING that halt deciders can not exist, and 
that your "logic system" is just inconsistant and based on the 
assumption of lies.

Sorry, you have sunk your reputation to the bottom of the lake of fire, 
and it seems you are going to be spending your eternity trying to find it.