Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Which if HHH returns, will be halting. Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:51:50 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org> References: <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org> <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org> <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org> <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:51:51 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="2111483"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 7814 Lines: 154 On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2024 12:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 8/10/24 10:24 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/10/2024 9:00 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 15:37 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 8/10/2024 8:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 10.aug.2024 om 14:06 schreef olcott: >>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 6:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 7:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-09 14:51:51 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2024 4:03 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:18:34 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely >>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In >>>>>>>>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach >>>>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The ranges of "each HHH" and "every HHH" are not defined above >>>>>>>>>>>> so that does not really mean anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here is something that literally does not mean anything: >>>>>>>>>>> "0i34ine ir m0945r (*&ubYU  I*(ubn)I*054 gfdpodf[" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like encrypted text that might mean something. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This could be encrypted text, too, or perhaps refers to some >>>>>>>>>> inside knowledge or convention. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I defined an infinite set of HHH x86 emulators. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe somewnete but not in the message I commented. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I stipulated that each member of this set emulates >>>>>>>>>>> zero to infinity instructions of DDD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That doesn't restrict much. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *I can't say it this way without losing 90% of my audience* >>>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set is mapped to one element of the >>>>>>>>>>> set of non-negative integers indicating the number of >>>>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is easier to talk about mapping if is given a name. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This one seems to be good* >>>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of >>>>>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of >>>>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it emulates. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would mean that only a finite number (possibly zero) of >>>>>>>>>> instructions is emulated. But the restriction to DDD does not >>>>>>>>>> seem reasonable. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I thopught HHH was a deider? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of >>>>>>>>> the set of positive integers indicating the number of >>>>>>>>> x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And only those element of the set that either reach the final >>>>>>>> state, or simulate forever are "correct" emulators of the whole >>>>>>>> program, suitable to show halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>>    return; >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words even though it is dead obvious to >>>>>>> us that a complete simulation of DDD simulated by HHH >>>>>> >>>>>> is impossible, because HHH is programmed to abort and, therefore, >>>>>> it is unable to do a complete simulation. >>>>> >>>>> A complete simulation of DDD by a pure x86 emulator >>>>> named HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" >>>>> instruction halt state. >>>> >>>> Indeed, HHH fails to reach its own halt state. HHH cannot possibly >>>> simulate itself up to its halt state. >>>> Which proves that the simulation is incomplete and, therefore, >>>> incorrect. >>>> >>> >>> That an emulation of an input is necessary correct no matter >>> what-the-Hell it does as long as it conforms to the semantics >>> of the x86 language is either over your head or you persistently >>> lie about it. >>> >> >> Which isn't "what the hell it does". but a correct x86 emulation by >> the semantic of the x86 language will ALWAYS and ONLY behave EXACTLY >> like that input when run as a program, > > >     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >     stop running unless aborted then > >     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > > > That is true in every case except when an input calls its > own simulating halt decider. Nope. No exeptions. That is just another of your "I made it up but can't prove it but it must be true" lies. > > void DDD() > { >   HHH(DDD); >   return; > } > > *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that* > Each element of this set corresponds to one element of the set > of positive integers indicating the number of  x86 instructions > of DDD that it emulates. But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven. > > In the above set no DDD ever reaches its own “return” > instruction halt state thus every HHH can correctly report this. > > Of course they do, what don't reach there is the partial emulation by the partial emulator. This is why partial emulations are not "correct" but only partial.