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 11:51:15 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 185
Message-ID: <vht4mj$1q6ju$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$oq0l$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <vhrdcq$1e2ro$1@dont-email.me>
 <2932f006c68fd9c0e08cfdbaf107819b66294f00@i2pn2.org>
 <vhrh08$1ej9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <2c3ad46739bbaf7bb82f074765d214ffc700f8b1@i2pn2.org>
 <vhrklt$1iqgq$1@dont-email.me>
 <9eb145f6bcb01720b3db44c93824d0f82380374f@i2pn2.org>
 <vhsrlq$1ojus$2@dont-email.me>
 <34f6cc9c64b89fb00c3376d717de709179971cda@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 18:51:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f5508b794280b8af0c3fe35e9b983404";
	logging-data="1907326"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18M7g8YbjwwDWLmYRjLlG6Q"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hvwe6+m/grt3FZs6BwF/tF1H3Po=
In-Reply-To: <34f6cc9c64b89fb00c3376d717de709179971cda@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241123-4, 11/23/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 10414

On 11/23/2024 9:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/23/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 11/22/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 11/22/24 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/22/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many times will you just refuse to accept the DEFINITION?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, how many times will you just ignore that the below input can 
>>>>>>> not be emulated past the call HHH instructioon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is what you have been denying.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, You have been LYING by having your HHH go past it. 
>>>>
>>>> *a copy of my quote above that you have repeatedly denied*
>>>
>>> I haven't "denied" it, I have proven it to be nonsense.
>>>
>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And the problem is that since your DDD don't contain the code for HHH, 
>>
>> Then DDD simply calls HHH(DDD) in its shared memory space.
>> Why act so stupidly?
>>
>>
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========