Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating
 itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:07:39 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <vhg39s$1csnf$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me>
 <c8e35b5f542012b2d798e7fe2afc3004298a2aa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vhdn96$r2jp$1@dont-email.me>
 <907b6e45c74720036b5f42c503d76ac426a71c92@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe69i$tuln$2@dont-email.me>
 <622e5aa555a9941d4cdb292d1e3e54e687e7b547@i2pn2.org>
 <vhe9rl$ue1m$2@dont-email.me>
 <254d3e7be0462ba8225ec0eb4804941ea635770d@i2pn2.org>
 <vheecn$12v3p$1@dont-email.me>
 <031e34cbeacc2a7b5145fd1f25ccee588e8cfb43@i2pn2.org>
 <vhg1oe$1cfbe$2@dont-email.me>
 <aa621f0677187fad3eb5b7f20715247c3ffbd61e@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:07:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9eeddbf0661af45b9b764b78cd434096";
	logging-data="1471215"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19c/NJ3sVlNmAv8XdYOVK/D"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:yfwITX5I+onzZyspfOKQdJwZAmw=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <aa621f0677187fad3eb5b7f20715247c3ffbd61e@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241118-6, 11/18/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5513

On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _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 emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N
>>>>>>>>>>>> to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will also add, that since you have dropped your 
>>>>>>>>>>> requirements on HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse 
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself from previous assumptions) there are MANY HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>> can complete the emulation, they just fail to be "pure 
>>>>>>>>>>> functions".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away
>>>>>>>>>> with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final
>>>>>>>>>> halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a 
>>>>>>>>> "Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
>>>>>>>> A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT
>>>>>>>> PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both 
>>>>>>> of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
>>>>>> termination analysis of C functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the 
>>>>> functions they call.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done
>>>> on programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on
>>>> pages 24-27 of the PDF of this paper.
>>>>
>>>> Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
>>>> https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The problem here is you are mixing language between domains. 
>>
>> I said the termination analysis applies to C functions
>> you said that it does not. No weasel words around it
>> YOU WERE WRONG!
>>
>>
> 
> Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones that 
> include everything that is part of them. Those things, in computation 
> theory, are called PROGRAMS.

The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf

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