Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 08:30:36 -0600 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 216 Message-ID: References: <17dd1e646a0cd01f94d9505a9be90fd3925add12@i2pn2.org> <5945fb90e23e2b78a90da47de02bd8e6d8c3ec4d@i2pn2.org> <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2024 15:30:37 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="21b29884f8fb0e827994241c071d9581"; logging-data="2386817"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX196JTZrSRTN0vRAWvMFsZxu" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:5VztjK2zM3d7WoVKrbt+Qe6wLes= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean In-Reply-To: <8c25d20279cfad6662137025897575068e10fe39@i2pn2.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241124-2, 11/24/2024), Outbound message Bytes: 11093 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========