Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:06:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 14:06:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec0d1ee71ceed677a7540299f25b1a73";
	logging-data="680416"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188apcEnFyV54w0KFlLjhZj"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QG0EV80SVA7B8w7WXcMNc5Id3Is=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4904

On 8/10/2024 6:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above
>>>>> so that does not really mean anything.
>>>>
>>>> Here is something that literally does not mean anything:
>>>> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf["
>>>
>>> Looks like encrypted text that might mean something.
>>>
>>>> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
>>>
>>> This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some
>>> inside knowledge or convention.
>>>
>>>> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators.
>>>
>>> Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented.
>>>
>>>> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates
>>>> zero to infinity instructions of DDD.
>>>
>>> That doesn't restrict much.
>>>
>>>> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience*
>>>> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the
>>>> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of
>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates.
>>>
>>> It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name.
>>>
>>>> *This one seems to be good*
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of
>>> instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not
>>> seem reasonable.
>>>
>>
>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
> 
> I thopught HHH was a deider?
> 
>>
>> 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 correctly emulates.
> 
> And only those element of the set that either reach the final state, or 
> simulate forever are "correct" emulators of the whole program, suitable 
> to show halting.
> 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

In other words even though it is dead obvious to
us that a complete simulation of DDD simulated by HHH
will never halt algorithms will forever be ridiculously
more stupid and never be able to see this?


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer