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

On 11/23/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/23/2024 9:02 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 11/22/2024 9:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 10:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 7:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 6:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 5:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 5:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 2:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/22/24 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/22/2024 12:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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?
>

>
Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
>

>
So?
>
Without including HHH in the input, at least implicitly, they couldn't have done what you said, so you are admitting that the actual input DDD must include the code of HHH, or you are just a liar.
>

>
You are just trying to get away with changing the subject.
The question is: Can DDD emulated by any HHH possibly
reach its final halt state.
>

>
The question (in computation theory) CAN'T be that, is it isn't a valid question, as it isn't an objective quesiton about just DDD.
>

>
In other words you are trying to get away pretending that
the fact that DDD defines a pathological relationship to
HHH can be simply ignored. How is that not stupid?
>
>
>
>

>
No, but it does mean that HHH needs to CORRECTLY handle that relationship, which is that it needs to understand that the HHH that DDD calls will do exactly what it does.
>

>
Always lacks enough execution trace data to do
what the outermost HHH does.
>
>

>
Exfept that it DOES when you apply the definition of Semantic, which means executed/emulated to completion.
>

>
How many times are you going to insist on the stupid nitwit
idea of emulating a non-terminating input to completion?
*DDD emulated by HHH HAS NO FREAKING COMPLETION NITWIT*
>

>
How many times will you just refuse to accept the DEFINITION?
>
And, how many times will you just ignore that the below input can not be emulated past the call HHH instructioon.
>

>
That is what you have been denying.

>
No, You have been LYING by having your HHH go past it.

>
*a copy of my quote above that you have repeatedly denied*

>
I haven't "denied" it, I have proven it to be nonsense.
>

 >>>>>>>>>>>> Of the infinite set of every HHH that emulates N steps
 >>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no DDD ever reaches its final halt state.
>

>
And the problem is that since your DDD don't contain the code for HHH,

 Then DDD simply calls HHH(DDD) in its shared memory space.
Why act so stupidly?
 

In other words, you admit that HHH isn't a pure function.
To use the contents of the "Shared Memory Space", it needs to be part of the input,
It seems you don't even know what a pure function is, as the use of that "shared memory space" is just accessing global memory, something a pure function isn't allowed to do.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are just a stupid liar.