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: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:30:36 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 216
Message-ID: <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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>
 <vht1c8$1pgbs$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 15:30:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="21b29884f8fb0e827994241c071d9581";
	logging-data="2386817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196JTZrSRTN0vRAWvMFsZxu"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5VztjK2zM3d7WoVKrbt+Qe6wLes=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241124-2, 11/24/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 11093

On 11/23/2024 11:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/23/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>
> 
> So, you are just demonstrating that your "logic" is based on the 
> meaningless use of buzzwords that you don't understand, but can parrot 
> their unlearned meaning, but have no idea how to actually use.
> 
>>
>> *As you already admitted below*
>> when N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH
>> DDD cannot reach past its call to HHH (statement)
> 
> But that was for the DDD that INCLUDED HHH as part of it, which you have 
> now made clear is NOT what you consider DDD to be. And for that case 
> DDD[n] calls HHH[n] (where HHH[n] is the version of HHH that does only n 
> steps of emulation) and while we can say that HHH[n[ does not emulate 
> DDD[n] to its final state, that property is NOT a property of of DDD[n], 
> but of HHH[n] and DDD[n] as its input.

That every DDD[n] calls its HHH[n] in recursive emulation
conclusively proves that no DDD[n] emulated by HHH[n] halts,
thus each HHH[n] is correct to reject its input as non halting.

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