Path: ...!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 18:51:05 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 23:51:05 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3419295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 4073 Lines: 78 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. > > I honestly do not believe that I would have ever made > the stupid mistake of calling a C function a computer > program. > Which just shows how stupid you are.