Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:58:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v9fopi$3tfih$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$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> <v99lpd$25ri3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9a88e$2923f$2@dont-email.me> <v9b4tr$2rdni$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9cvv5$39tbd$1@dont-email.me> <v9f203$3pfoq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9fl4k$3se8c$2@dont-email.me> <v9fnd9$1ut3$1@news.muc.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:58:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5789d119f15570941a39cdb59159ffa5";
	logging-data="4111953"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HxOiUZbFaHVIXWB+Cvfvy"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XP1fTmuuuZxu0Ku3KAUbrHSWxWI=
In-Reply-To: <v9fnd9$1ut3$1@news.muc.de>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6163

On 8/13/2024 8:34 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/13/2024 2:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 12.aug.2024 om 14:42 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/11/2024 2:54 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 11.aug.2024 om 13:45 schreef olcott:
> 
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>     return;
>>>>>> }
> 
>>>>>> None-the-less it is clear that of the above specified infinite
>>>>>> set DDD correctly emulated by each element of that set never
>>>>>> reaches its own "return" instruction halt state.
> 
>>>>> Since no DDD is correctly simulated by HHH, we are talking about the
>>>>> properties of an empty set.
>>>>> But, indeed, the simulation of DDD by HHH fails to reach the halt
>>>>> state. It aborts one cycle before the simulated HHH would reach its
>>>>> 'return' instruction, after which DDD would reach its halt state.
> 
> 
>>>>>> My words must be understandable by ordinary C programmers
>>>>>> and computer scientists. The latter tend to conclude that
>>>>>> my work is incorrect as soon as they know the subject matter
>>>>>> before actually seeing what I said.
> 
> Your words are understandable; they're just wrong.
> 
>>>>> Every C programmer understands that a simulation fails if it does not
>>>>> reach the end of a halting program.
> 
>>>> Four expert C programmers (two with masters degrees in
>>>> computer science) agree that DDD correctly simulated by
>>>> HHH does not halt.
> 
> It's not clear what these "expert programmers" have agreed to.  As Fred
> has frequently pointed out, your DDD cannot be correctly simulated by
> HHH, so you have an empty set about which anything is true.
> 
>>> Many more experts with master degrees tell you that it does halt.
>>> Show evidence instead of authority.
> 
>> *Every attempt at rebutting this has been*
> 
> There's nothing to rebut.  You just keep coming out with blatant
> falsehoods, as pointed out by the other posters, here.
> 
>> (a) Denying verified facts
> 
> That's a lie.  By "verified facts" you just mean "falsehoods PO would
> like to be true".
> 
>> (b) Strawman-deception of changing what I said and rebutting that
> 
> That's a lie, too.  I've not seen anybody else apart from you doing this.
> Indeed you're doing this as a response to Fred's last post.
> 
>> (c) Pure ad hominem insults with zero reasoning
> 
> That's also false.  The insults follow as a result of your falsehoods and
> lies.  They are entirely justified.  You continually insult other posters
> by several means, including ignoring what they write.  If you would
> actually treat them with respect, the insults against you would cease.
> 
>> Mike is the only one here that seems to have enough technical
>> skill to understand the verified facts.
> 
> You mean agree with your falsehoods.  Mike doesn't do this.  You wouldn't
> know technical skill if it bit you on the nose.
> 
>> Everyone else denies them entirely on the basis of their own ignorance.
> 
> You're the ignorant poster here, nobody else.  You've taken a small part
> of an undergraduate mathematics or computer science course, something the
> typcial student would master in a few hours at most, spent 20 years on
> it, and you still don't get it.
> 
> [ .... ]
> 
> 
>> -- 
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
> 

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

Through something like mathematical induction we can directly
see that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly
reach its "return" instruction final halt state.

HHH is only required to predict whether or not an unlimited
emulation of DDD would ever halt.

Thus when computing the behavior that this finite string
specifies DDD never halts.

_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

DDD always has the exact same finite string of machine
code bytes. This requires each HHH to always be at machine
address 000015d2.

The computation is always reporting whether or not DDD
can possibly reach its c3 "ret" instruction at machine
address [00002183].


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