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: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 20:49:51 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <30f8781365f13eb6712a653321d2e49aa833f360@i2pn2.org> <4b836bd0c44eb0fb0d01ac1401bde229813cef20@i2pn2.org> <9d83447ce451abd731795728fd71bec5ec103e2a@i2pn2.org> <584da8e6c06e8b9b12e8d5779a6e2840137af532@i2pn2.org> <8f1c5d657f9ebf9a7b5d3f09c34dd00acb5ec694@i2pn2.org> <757ab51506e1b5f3de8c4629689d72296662c0a8@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:49:52 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3714646"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 7330 Lines: 123 On 11/22/24 7:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/22/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 11/22/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/22/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 11/22/24 5:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/22/2024 2:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 11/22/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 12:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/22/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 12:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:36:25 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:50:33 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2024 6:20 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:19:43 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2024 3:11 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 09:19:03 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it gets the wrong answer for the halting problem, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as DDD dpes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH does not halt. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever. DDD halts and HHH should return that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IT IS NOT THE SAME INSTANCE OF DDD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All instances of DDD behave the same (if it is a pure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> function and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the HHH called from it doesn't switch behaviour by a static >>>>>>>>>>>>>> variable). >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only HHH is required to be a pure function, DDD is >>>>>>>>>>>>> expressly allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>> to be any damn thing. >>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't have side effects, such as reading a static Root >>>>>>>>>>>> variable. >>>>>>>>>>> The static root variable has not one damn thing to do with the >>>>>>>>>>> fact that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>>>> "return" >>>>>>>>>>> instruction. >>>>>>>>>> It does. If it were always set to True, all instances of the >>>>>>>>>> same HHH >>>>>>>>>> would abort and halt. Why else would it be there? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABORT/NOT ABORT >>>>>>>>> FOR THREE FREAKING MONTHS. WAKE THE F-CK UP. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DDD EMULATED BY HHH >>>>>>>>> REACHING ITS FINAL HALT STATE >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, does HHH abort or not abort it emulation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps >>>>>>> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So? >>>>>> >>>>>> Without including HHH in the input, at least implicitly, they >>>>>> couldn't have done what you said, so you are admitting that the >>>>>> actual input DDD must include the code of HHH, or you are just a >>>>>> liar. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are just trying to get away with changing the subject. >>>>> The question is: Can DDD emulated by any HHH possibly >>>>> reach its final halt state. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The question (in computation theory) CAN'T be that, is it isn't a >>>> valid question, as it isn't an objective quesiton about just DDD. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you are trying to get away pretending that >>> the fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship to >>> HHH can be simply ignored. How is that not stupid? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> No, but it does mean that HHH needs to CORRECTLY handle that >> relationship, which is that it needs to understand that the HHH that >> DDD calls will do exactly what it does. >> > > Always lacks enough execution trace data to do > what the outermost HHH does. > > Exfept that it DOES when you apply the definition of Semantic, which means executed/emulated to completion. It isn't the emulation by HHH that matters, as that is a subjective, non-semantic operation, but the FULL emulation of the input, which is the OBJECTIVE and SEMANTIC operation. And, you still haven't answered about the INVALID input of a non-semantic description, since you claim the description of DDD doesn't include the code of HHH, so HHH can't actually correctly emulate the INPUT since the needed information isn't there, which is what makes your concept just subjective garbabe. Sorry, but you ignoring the errors just shows that you are just making a reckless disregard for the truth, and thus your pathological liar are really just lies.