Path: ...!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: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:54:32 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 170
Message-ID: <vht1c8$1pgbs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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$2@dont-email.me> <vhmthl$j0ao$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhnjqm$mjea$2@dont-email.me> <vhpffl$13p8e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhqcg0$18k1i$1@dont-email.me> <vhs21l$1kglp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhsncn$1nu6d$1@dont-email.me>
 <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org>
 <vhsri7$1ojus$1@dont-email.me>
 <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:54:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5508b794280b8af0c3fe35e9b983404";
	logging-data="1884540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18B+3BzDZWL07KF63cMUjyx"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G6CNUjxceyUt5svdSX0FBHg5q38=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241123-4, 11/23/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 8527

On 11/23/2024 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/23/24 10:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/23/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/23/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-11-22 16:45:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-11-21 15:32:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-11-20 22:03:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach the instructions before tha return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach the instruction after the HHH call.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it cannot reach return instruction of HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too vague to be regareded true or false. It is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly possibe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to define two programs and call them DDD and HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What a jackass. DDD and HHH have been fully specified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for many months.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are specified in a way that makes your "every DDD" and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "any DDD"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad (perhaps even incorrect) use of Common language.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I specify the infinite sets with each element numbered
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the top of page 2 of my paper. Back in April of 2023
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have also specifed that HHH is the program in your GitHub 
>>>>>>>>>>> repository.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Should I assume that you must be lying about
>>>>>>>>>> this because you did not quote where I did this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you may assume that I was confused by your lack of clarity and
>>>>>>>>> in particular by your bad choice of names.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you clearly state that HHH is not the function HHH that you 
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> in your GitHub repository then I needn't to consider the 
>>>>>>>>> possiblity
>>>>>>>>> that you just triying to deceive by equivcation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH is one concrete example of an infinite set of instances
>>>>>>>> such that DDD is emulated by HHH N times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That sentence says that there is only one HHH, contradicting your
>>>>>>> earlier statement that HHH is a generic term for every member of 
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be a damned liar: "infinite set of instances"
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean you lied when you said "one concrete example"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One element of an infinite set does not say there
>>>> is no infinite set. Is says there is an infinite set.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But one element of an infinite set is not the infinite set.
>>>
>>> You are just showing that your logic is based on proven incorrect set 
>>> theory.
>>>
>>> IF HHH is an ELEMENT of the set, then it is that one element for the 
>>> entire evaluation, 
>>
>> Liar:
>>
>> A proof by induction consists of two cases. The first, the base case,
>> proves the statement for n=0 without assuming any knowledge of
>> other cases. The second case, the induction step, proves that if the
>> statement holds for any given case n=k, then it must also hold for
>> the next case n=k+1. These two steps establish that the statement
>> holds for every natural number n. The base case does not necessarily
>> begin with n=0, but often with n=1, and possibly with any fixed natural
>> number n=N, establishing the truth of the statement for all natural
>> numbers n ≥ N.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
>>
> 
> And when have you ever provided such a proof for your statement?
> 
> NOWHERE
> 
> Your problem is you don't even have a logical basis to express your 
> statements in, so you can't do an induction on them.
> 


*As you already admitted below*
when N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH
DDD cannot reach past its call to HHH (statement)

Thus the induction result is proven:
"the (above) statement holds for every natural number n."

On 11/22/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 > On 11/22/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>
 >
 > And, how many times will you just ignore that
 > the below input can not be emulated past the
 > call HHH instructioon.
 >
 >> _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 is the C function under test.
HHH is not the C function under test.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========