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

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:

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.
>

>
Except your DDD *CAN'T BE EMULTATED* by *ANY* HHH, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate the Call HHH per the x86 language from your input, as the data isn't tnere.
>

 In patent law this is called incorporation by reference.

And you need to PRECISELY specify what you are referencing.

I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings
of HHH. You already know that it is ridiculously stupid
that you suggest I should write them all down.

And thus admit that you are not talking sense, as each HHH that you think of creates a DIFFERENT program DDD

 When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its
input then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It
is despicably dishonest of you to say that when N instructions
have been correctly emulated that no instructions have been
correctly emulating.

No, it is dishonest for you to lie.
I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded number of steps.
So, all I am saying is that just N steps correctly emulated is less that an unbounded number of steps, which is at TRUE statement, and you disagreement just shows that you are just a stupid liar.
The problem seems to stem from the fact that you are just ignorant of the rules, and ignorance of the rules is not an excuse, particularly after you have been warned about it.
You are just proving how little you know by insisting on keeping to your strawmen.

 

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.
>

>
But since NO HHH can do the first part of your requirements, that of actually emulating the input, you are just proved to be an lying idiot.
>
Also, Computation Theory isn't interested in Subjective Non-semantic problems like yours, but only objective problems, especially those that are semantic (which means one that actually IS based on the FINAL behavior, after an unbounded number of steps) properties.
>
Your ignorance of that fact just shows your utter stupidity.
>
It doesn't what the emulation of HHH is, if it is only finite, only the unbounded emulation of that input (Which will be halting if that DDD is based on an HHH that answers after finite time).
>
THe HHH that DOES a semantic emulation unfortunately never answers, so fails to be the needed decider.
>
So, you just struck out twice.
>
You then keep on lying about it, which gets your ejected from the logic pool..
>
Sorry, that is just the facts, you are showing you are just too stupid to have your idea have any merits, and thus even if there was something to your ideas, you have probably successfully killed them.