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: 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: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 07:28:19 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 211
Message-ID: <vi76pj$106j$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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>
 <vhvdac$28qs1$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ccf1daed71803939ed9acc5dc0f436e46bbfba2@i2pn2.org>
 <vi3hj5$3ad5d$1@dont-email.me>
 <d69b59d8743dd2713e16ca41604ff30b4741b82d@i2pn2.org>
 <GcudnQRbD7HyPNv6nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <vi72fe$dbk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 14:28:20 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="82335070d8bf9370532060f5e42bce15";
	logging-data="32979"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/VRsWDK40oNBB1Kh1ZHNbS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:z2Z/3GMUdf8akRmM1fQKnJYf8DM=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241126-6, 11/26/2024), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vi72fe$dbk$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 11817

On 11/27/2024 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>> meaningless use of buzzwords that you don't understand, but can
>>>>>>> parrot their unlearned meaning, but have no idea how to actually use.
>>>>>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========