Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/18/24 4:10 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 2:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 8:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 8:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 3:19 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sun, 17 Nov 2024 20:35:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>

I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings of HHH.

>
Do you mean they are parameterised by the number of steps they simulate?
>

>
No I do not mean that.

>
Then your arguement is based on an equivocation.
>

Whether or not DDD emulated by HHH ever reaches its
own "return" instruction final halt state has nothing
to do with any of the internal working of HHH as long
as each HHH emulates N steps of its input according
to the semantics of the x86 language.

>
Except that the behavior DOES depend on if that HHH returns.
>
Of course, your subjective, non-semantic property of "emulated by HHH" is just a meaningless term, so doesn't really mean anything, so your statement is just nonsense anyway.
>

>
You are a damned liar trying to get away with lying about
the effect of the pathological relationship that DDD specifies.
>
>

>
Nope, you are a just a damned liar making claims without any form of actual logic behind them.
>
Do you have ANY source that backs your claims about what you claim?
>

>
DEFECTION FOR BRAINS
DDD emulated by HHH specifies that HHH emulates
itself emulating DDD such that no such DDD can ever
reach its "return" instruction final halt state.

>
But the emulation by HHH is NOT the criteria, as the PARTIAL emulation by HHH is not a semantic property, and is just subjective, not objective
>

 Your ADD must be actual severe brain damage if you
can't keep track of the fact that requiring the complete
emulatiion of a non-terminating input in not ridiculously
stupid when you have been told this dozens of times.

No, but if your morals means that you don't need to follow the rules, then you deserve your one way trip to the lake.
There is no requirement for the decdier to perform the complete emulation of the non-terminating input, just that it shows that if something DID an unbounded emulation of that COMPLETE input, it would never reach a final state.

 

>

>
*Professor Hehner recognized this repeating process before I did*
   From a programmer's point of view, if we apply an interpreter to a
   program text that includes a call to that same interpreter with that
   same text as argument, then we have an infinite loop. A halting
   program has some of the same character as an interpreter: it applies
   to texts through abstract interpretation. Unsurprisingly, if we apply
   a halting program to a program text that includes a call to that same
   halting program with that same text as argument, then we have an
   infinite loop. (Hehner:2011:15)
>
[5] E C R Hehner. Problems with the Halting Problem, COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013
https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf
>

>
Just showing that you are not alone in making the error.
>

 The meaning of the words prove that it is true.
 

Nope. Showing you don't know the actual meaning of the words.