Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:39:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f7a568982428ce74da1635a0537c47580063d45b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <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$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org>
 <v988fu$r9k6$1@dont-email.me>
 <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org>
 <v98ag9$rj63$1@dont-email.me>
 <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org>
 <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 19:39:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2124526"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4798
Lines: 78

On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
> 
> *This is the mistake that I corrected*

But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, since you 
haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly emulates ANY of 
the instructions of the program DDD after the call HHH, as everything 
says it jumps to something other than the correct x86 emulation of the 
program DDD that it was given.

But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.


>>>> But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and then 
>>>> returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.
> 
> <snip>

And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, then 
returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.

PERIOD.

PROVEN.

Only the PARTIAL emulation by HHH of that input doesn't reach that 
point, because HHH has been programmed to give up too soon.

>>>
>>> When each element of the outer-most directly executed SHH
>>> corresponds to one element of the set of positive integers
>>> indicating the number of x86 instructions of DDD that it
>>> emulates none of the emulated instances of HHH ever returns.
>>
>> And EVERY ONE Of them doesn't get the right answer.
>>
> 
> *Yes it does seem to be your ADD*
> We are not even talking about the right answer.
> 
> We are talking about your mistake that at least one
> element of the emulated HHH returns.
> *None of them ever returns no-matter-what*
> 

No, we are talking abort the right answer to your question.

IF the topic of the sentence is "DDD", then the answer is based on the 
full behavior of the program DDD, which is to halt if HHH returns.

To get the answer you want, you have to be talking about the emulation 
by HHH of DDD where the topic is the emulation.


The problem seems to be that you don't understand that aspect of 
grammer. the Simulation of DDD by HHH and the DDD that HHH emulated are 
fundamentally two different concepts, even if they look at the same code.

The emulation of DDD by HHH is a subjective property of the input, while 
the behavior of DDD is an objective property that is independent of who 
looks at it (but of course is a function of what HHH is put into DDD, 
the tying of these together is outside that logic and just restricts 
what you can actually show).