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

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:

 

My code is one example of the infinite set of every possible HHH that
emulates DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language.

Like all of them, it is unable to simulate DDD to its undeniable halting
state.
 

In your case you may simply not even understand what
infinite recursion is, thus cannot see the isomorphism.

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.
HHH is reporting on the behavior of its INPUT.
HHH is not reporting on the behavior of some other
different DDD instance that behaves differently.

I can make a "decider" this way: it simulates no steps at all and returns
that all inputs halt when simulated by it.
 

Are you a fake Christian?

I am a fake Scientologist.

That may be the correct Scientologist to be.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer