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
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 20:32:12 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f6ec688789f2269ceaa1d47885513bd9de28deec@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>
 <f1c860093e9a1b497d3c335625330cd13936a054@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1il$1cfbe$1@dont-email.me>
 <4588f439c2cf659f139ac382988bee502f6374cb@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg3vm$1csnf$2@dont-email.me>
 <213a1232fb21eb7f670d44695f92d1cfc3180c72@i2pn2.org>
 <vhgaga$1e8jl$1@dont-email.me>
 <dd238ba948c64b3da9651834bb2dbd14b9f33d7d@i2pn2.org>
 <vhggsb$1f3se$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 01:32:13 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3123616"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vhggsb$1f3se$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5708
Lines: 99

On 11/18/24 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/18/2024 3:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/18/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/18/2024 1:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/18/2024 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 8:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are a damned liar trying to get away with lying about
>>>>>>> the effect of the pathological relationship that DDD specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, you are a just a damned liar making claims without any form 
>>>>>> of actual logic behind them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have ANY source that backs your claims about what you claim?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DEFECTION FOR BRAINS
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates
>>>>> itself emulating DDD such that no such DDD can ever
>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> But the emulation by HHH is NOT the criteria, as the PARTIAL 
>>>> emulation by HHH is not a semantic property, and is just subjective, 
>>>> not objective
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your ADD must be actual severe brain damage if you
>>> can't keep track of the fact that requiring the complete
>>> emulatiion of a non-terminating input in not ridiculously
>>> stupid when you have been told this dozens of times.
>>
>> No, but if your morals means that you don't need to follow the rules, 
>> then you deserve your one way trip to the lake.
>>
>> There is no requirement for the decdier to perform the complete 
>> emulation of the non-terminating input, 
> 
> Then why the Hell do YOU keep requiring this?

When did I ever say that HHH needed to do the full emulation? It only 
needs to do that if you define it to be a full emulator.

Its ANSWER needs to match what the full emulation does.

And that is emulating the DDD that calls the HHH that gave the answer.

> 
>> just that it shows that if something DID an unbounded emulation of 
>> that COMPLETE input, it would never reach a final state.
>>
> 
> Finally you tell the truth. I knew that you could.
> 

That is what I have said everytime.

Note, the complete emulatioin of the DDD that calls the HHH that aborts 
and returns 0, will emulatie that HHH to the point it aborts and returns 
to DDD and then seens it halt.

Note, it is NOT the results of emulating the DDD that calls the 
unbounded emulator, as that isn't the input that was given to the HHH 
that answered.