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

On 11/22/24 1:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 12:07 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 10:36:25 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/22/2024 9:16 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 22 Nov 2024 08:50:33 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/22/2024 6:20 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 21 Nov 2024 15:19:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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:

>

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.

All instances of DDD behave the same (if it is a pure function and
the HHH called from it doesn't switch behaviour by a static
variable).

Only HHH is required to be a pure function, DDD is expressly allowed
to be any damn thing.

TMs don't have side effects, such as reading a static Root variable.

The static root variable has not one damn thing to do with the
fact that DDD emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.

It does. If it were always set to True, all instances of the same HHH
would abort and halt. Why else would it be there?
>

 WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT ABORT/NOT ABORT
FOR THREE FREAKING MONTHS. WAKE THE F-CK UP.
 WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DDD EMULATED BY HHH
REACHING ITS FINAL HALT STATE
 

So, does HHH abort or not abort it emulation?
If it aborts, then its emulation is only partial, and thus doesn't determine "not halting", is your claim is invalid.
If it doesn't, it never answers, so your claim is invalid.
Either way, your claim is invalid and you are shown to be a liar.
The problem is that your DDD doesn't *HAVE* a "Halting Behavior" as it isn't the right category of thing which have that, which is PROGRAMS (which include leaf functions).
DDD being a non-leaf function with HHH not included as part of it, just can not be "correctly emulated", so your claom that HHH does a correct emulation is just a LIE.
Your problem is that you have just filled your head with nonsense so you don't know what you are talking about, and brainwashed yourself to be unable to notice.
Since you have turned yourself into a habitual liar, your destiny is that of all such habitual liars, that lake of fire.
Sorry, that is the facts unless you can break yourself out of your own brainwashing.

The behavior of DDD emulated by HHH is different than the actual
behavior of DDD emulated by HHH1.

Yes. HHH simulates it incorrectly.