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: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 11:49:25 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 220
Message-ID: <vic2n5$11e32$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhdd32$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$1@dont-email.me> <vi9fdg$g9cq$1@dont-email.me> <via53f$ju6v$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2024 10:49:26 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4b2f92d929bfeadea53f41c21fd801ec";
	logging-data="1095778"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NHzVEOgmnTJ1bzmAO+hp3"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TENkzLizK1wN4j0xS8IKgzOSqic=
Bytes: 12528

On 2024-11-28 16:17:51 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/28/2024 4:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========