Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
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: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 12:14:38 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 211
Message-ID: <vi72fe$dbk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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>
 <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
 <d69b59d8743dd2713e16ca41604ff30b4741b82d@i2pn2.org>
 <GcudnQRbD7HyPNv6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 13:14:38 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="51057b766108f6de560990b90c326b5e";
	logging-data="13684"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+zqwdAQW8jy8vXMl7qC1h7Btt+6d/bxRo="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C+wdHCane3oj7YyhIz3RmpNpzCE=
	sha1:PGF4hCJ7br0sLiP9ilDd2j2kyCE=
Bytes: 11515

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/2024 7:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 11/25/24 11:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========