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: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 22:08:05 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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>
 <vht1c8$1pgbs$1@dont-email.me>
 <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org>
 <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 05:08:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="48eb12d7343e268e6147c1478aa4b066";
	logging-data="3486893"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19RA1bDqKEYP3ozkvqmq6RS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LSJJJBUIfpzgUwjH9vF+dMDNRSI=
In-Reply-To: <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241125-4, 11/25/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 10019

On 11/24/2024 11:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/24/24 9:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========