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 4:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 3:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 3:42 PM, olcott wrote:

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.

>
No, you keep on changing them, after all, you say there is one set of code, but an infinite set of pairings, and even though for every one of them the HHH that DDD calls gives the wrong answer, you want to define it as correct.
>

 Top of page 2 Jackass
 https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
 

Which just proves your ignorance, as it has been shown that for EVERY element of that infinite set of pairs, HHH gives the wrong answer, as DDD emulated by HHH is NOT the definition of the behavior that a Halt Decider is supposed to be answering, but the actual behavior of the program described, or the complete emulation of that input by a UTM (which for DDD will still call the HHH that it has been paired with)
EVERY HHH(DDD) that answers 0, is wrong, as UTM(DDD) for that DDD, will halt.
So, you are just proving that you are nothing but a stupid liar that basess his logic on strawman.