Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:07:44 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 208
Message-ID: <vi9fdg$g9cq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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> <vi6oqd$3unab$1@dont-email.me> <vi76he$106j$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:07:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d60216806e0018c0f36e51cb37fff448";
	logging-data="533914"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JOq46u5PbZQ2hBdOLsC6/"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:67mLvd7PII2NIuITe3abd8SfSqI=
Bytes: 11583

On 2024-11-27 13:23:58 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/27/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-27 04:34:55 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But every HHH[n] aborts its emulaton and returns, and thus DDD[n] 
>>>>>> halts, and thus HHH is INCORRECT to call its input non-halting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> *You are a stupid liar*
>>>>> You know that halting means reaching a final state and you
>>>>> know that no input to HHH can possibly reach its final state.
>>>>> So you aren't just a liar, you are a stupid one.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And you should know that "Halting" is a property of Turing Machines / 
>>>> Computations / Progrzms / completely defined function and the like ONLY.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have already proved that halting is a property of C functions.
>>> You are not stupid, and you have good knowledge yet you do lie
>>> stupidly.
>> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========