Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
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 20:07:22 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <vhrdcq$1e2ro$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@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>
 <f9e47c3a69fcbf8086ee78e3cac231a2b7a9dc7b@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr29f$1cf6i$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f1c5d657f9ebf9a7b5d3f09c34dd00acb5ec694@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr5na$1d1eq$1@dont-email.me>
 <757ab51506e1b5f3de8c4629689d72296662c0a8@i2pn2.org>
 <vhr8mf$1d88t$1@dont-email.me>
 <d0faedefdc505b0a232ba57cdba232bdeb7f8522@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:07:23 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5508b794280b8af0c3fe35e9b983404";
	logging-data="1510264"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NxLu/VeyTeAgJ+RWHEjET"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6LjCE1AZAfViDnMBMFKVJV9+9HI=
In-Reply-To: <d0faedefdc505b0a232ba57cdba232bdeb7f8522@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241122-4, 11/22/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 7717

On 11/22/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/22/24 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/22/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/22/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/24 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are just trying to get away with changing the subject.
>>>>>> The question is: Can DDD emulated by any HHH possibly
>>>>>> reach its final halt state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The question (in computation theory) CAN'T be that, is it isn't a 
>>>>> valid question, as it isn't an objective quesiton about just DDD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words you are trying to get away pretending that
>>>> the fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship to
>>>> HHH can be simply ignored. How is that not stupid?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, but it does mean that HHH needs to CORRECTLY handle that 
>>> relationship, which is that it needs to understand that the HHH that 
>>> DDD calls will do exactly what it does.
>>>
>>
>> Always lacks enough execution trace data to do
>> what the outermost HHH does.
>>
>>
> 
> Exfept that it DOES when you apply the definition of Semantic, which 
> means executed/emulated to completion.
> 

How many times are you going to insist on the stupid nitwit
idea of emulating a non-terminating input to completion?
*DDD emulated by HHH HAS NO FREAKING COMPLETION NITWIT*

_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]

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