Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.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 15:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fb0b8f5d2d849d9934b95381e29bff0982684697@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 15:16:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3627427"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4315
Lines: 59

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:
>>>>
>>>>>>> My code is one example of the infinite set of every possible HHH
>>>>>>> that emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.
>>>> Like all of them, it is unable to simulate DDD to its undeniable
>>>> halting state.
>>>
>>>>>> 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 behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is
> different than the actual behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1.
Yes. HHH simulates it incorrectly.

> Note we have been on this one point about the behavior of DDD emulated
> by HHH for many months and have not yet even begun to talk about how HHH
> would report this behavior.
Yes, you seem hellbent on dying before you can make your point.

> The question does DDD halt?
> Is answered by Can DDD emulated by any HHH reach its own "return"
> instruction final state?
Not in the case of an erroneous simulation.
If DDD halts, you can simply run it to find out.

> The question: How could HHH determine whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
> can possibly reach its own final state?
> is another entirely different question.
It seems very relevant. Since you have an answer to the former question,
maybe you can proceed to this one?

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.