Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---natural number mapping

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.

 When we can see that in none of these cases that
the correctly emulated DDD ever reaches its "return"
instruction halt state.

But, all the ones that aborted after a finite number of states, show nothing except that the input runs for at least that many steps.
Remember, each input, the DDD paired with a given HHH, is a DIFFERENT input with different behavior so you can't move resu

 This entails that each HHH can take a wild guess that
its input does not reach this halt state and necessarily
be correct.

Nope, you just keep on confusing the behavior of the input, which is what the program it represents does when run, with the behaivor of the partial emulation of it.
Every HHH that answers was given a DDD that halts, so if it is going to take a wild guess, it needs to guess Halting to be right.
You are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about, particually what a "Program" is.

 When all X has property Y then each X is necessarily
correct to state that is has property Y.
 

But the property they shaered wasn't "non-halting" but not-halted yet. Only the one HHH that never aborts showed not-halting. In fact, the rest can be shown to be Halting, and thus we can show that you don't understand how to do logic, and that you belive that lying is a valid form of logic.