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: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:03:08 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f9e47c3a69fcbf8086ee78e3cac231a2b7a9dc7b@i2pn2.org>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <vhf257$16a9p$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhg8qq$1duv3$1@dont-email.me> <vhho9r$1pkdu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhjkn0$28t3s$2@dont-email.me> <vhkbia$1md6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhlmbv$9l59$2@dont-email.me>
 <d575206d11b6ca9827a7245566e3d2a990cc0de2@i2pn2.org>
 <vhm7j5$c0mm$2@dont-email.me>
 <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@i2pn2.org>
 <vhnj19$mjea$1@dont-email.me>
 <edab5a897ccdda3deba5af968da56f5fc3718936@i2pn2.org>
 <vho85f$pvmk$1@dont-email.me>
 <4b836bd0c44eb0fb0d01ac1401bde229813cef20@i2pn2.org>
 <vhq5np$179o9$1@dont-email.me>
 <fb0b8f5d2d849d9934b95381e29bff0982684697@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqbua$18g1e$1@dont-email.me>
 <9d83447ce451abd731795728fd71bec5ec103e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqig2$19n3n$1@dont-email.me>
 <584da8e6c06e8b9b12e8d5779a6e2840137af532@i2pn2.org>
 <vhqjdr$19n3n$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:03:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3681801"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vhqjdr$19n3n$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5538
Lines: 84

On 11/22/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/22/2024 12:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/22/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2024 12:07 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:36:25 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 11/22/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:50:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 6:20 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:19:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:11 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:19:03 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/24 5:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 3:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-20 03:23:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2024 4:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-18 20:42:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "the mapping" on the subject line is not 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject line does not specify which mapping and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no larger context that could specify that. Therefore it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be "a mapping".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-17 18:36:17 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But it gets the wrong answer for the halting problem, as DDD 
>>>>>>>>>>>> dpes
>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not halt.
>>>>>>>>>> Whatever. DDD halts and HHH should return that.
>>>>>>>>> IT IS NOT THE SAME INSTANCE OF DDD.
>>>>>>>> All instances of DDD behave the same (if it is a pure function and
>>>>>>>> the HHH called from it doesn't switch behaviour by a static
>>>>>>>> variable).
>>>>>>> Only HHH is required to be a pure function, DDD is expressly allowed
>>>>>>> to be any damn thing.
>>>>>> TMs don't have side effects, such as reading a static Root variable.
>>>>> The static root variable has not one damn thing to do with the
>>>>> fact that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>>>> instruction.
>>>> It does. If it were always set to True, all instances of the same HHH
>>>> would abort and halt. Why else would it be there?
>>>>
>>>
>>> WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABORT/NOT ABORT
>>> FOR THREE FREAKING MONTHS. WAKE THE F-CK UP.
>>>
>>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DDD EMULATED BY HHH
>>> REACHING ITS FINAL HALT STATE
>>>
>>
>> So, does HHH abort or not abort it emulation?
>>
> 
> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
> 

So?

Without including HHH in the input, at least implicitly, they couldn't 
have done what you said, so you are admitting that the actual input DDD 
must include the code of HHH, or you are just a liar.

Of that infinite set, all the ones that abort don't define their input 
as non-halting by aborting, and the ACTUAL unbounded emulation of their 
inputs (when you include the HHH that answered as part of the input) 
will reach the final state, so they are wrong per the ACTUAL definition 
of halting.

And, all the ones that don't abort, fail to answer, so they are wrong as 
halt deciders.

Since we had to add the HHH that they call, and which you claim to be 
answering about it, each of those inputs is a different input, so 
different behavior is ok.

The fact that it is different, says it is actually impossible to correct 
ask about the input without that added information about HHH.


Sorry, you are just proving yourself to be the liar.,