Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon 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, 20 Nov 2024 23:00:44 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@i2pn2.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 04:00:44 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3439001"; 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: 5360 Lines: 111 On 11/20/24 9:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/20/2024 5:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 11/20/24 5:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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? >> >> You forget how many times you have posted the link to your "fully >> functioning code"? >> >> You can't have it both ways, either that *IS* the code of HHH. >> > > My code is one example of the infinite set of every possible > HHH that emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 > language. But it gets the wrong answer for the halting problem, as DDD dpes halt. > > My example code sets a kind of mathematical induction like > pattern AND YOU KNOW IT !!! > Nope, "code" can't be an "induction pattern", that is just a category error, Clearly you don't understand what an induction pattern IS. > DDD emulated by HHH N times never reaches its "return" > instruction final state for any value of N. From this > we can infer that this remains true for infinite emulation. > But the emulation of DDD by HHH isn't the proper criteria, and isn't even a valid criteria for a decider. A partial emulation not reaching the final state does not prove that the input is non-halting. You are just proving your stupidity. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction > > So, how does your example meet those requirement. All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar that has no idea what he is talking about.