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 3:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 1:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/18/24 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/18/2024 10:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 2:51 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.
>
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.
>
>

>
I will also add, that since you have dropped your requirements on HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse yourself from previous assumptions) there are MANY HHH that can complete the emulation, they just fail to be "pure functions".
>

>
The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away
with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final
halt state.
>

>
Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a "Program" is are DEFINED, and you can't change it.
>

>
YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.
A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT
PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.
>

>
But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both of those are operations done on PROGRAMS.
>

>
No stupid I provided a published paper that includes the
termination analysis of C functions.

>
Look again at what they process. C functions that include all the functions they call.
>

>
You stupidly claimed termination analysis is only done
on programs. I proved that you were stupidly wrong on
pages 24-27 of the PDF of this paper.
>
Automated Termination Analysis of C Programs
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>
>

>
The problem here is you are mixing language between domains.

>
I said the termination analysis applies to C functions
you said that it does not. No weasel words around it
YOU WERE WRONG!
>
>

>
Termination analysis applies to FUNCTIONS, FULL FUNCTIONS, ones that include everything that is part of them. Those things, in computation theory, are called PROGRAMS.

>
The top of PDF page 24 are not programs defection for brains.
https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/972440/files/972440.pdf
>

>
Those *ARE* "Computation Theory" Programs.
>
They are also  LEAF functions, unlike your DDD.
>
NOTHING in that paper (form what I can see) talks about handling non- leaf-functions with including all the code in the routines it calls.
>

 Since the halting problem is defined to have the input
call its own termination analyzer and the termination
analyzer is itself required to halt then any sequence
of this input that would prevent it from halting IS A
NON-HALTING SEQUENCE THAT MUST BE ABORTED AND CANNOT
BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE.
 It is like I say that all black cows are black and
are cows and you disagree.
 

Nope, just shows your stupidity,
The "Halting Problem" is the problem about giving the decider a representation of a program and its input, and seeing if such a decider can be found that answers correct about the halting behavior of that program/data given to it.
It says NOTHING about the program reperesented by the input "calling" its own termination analyzer, thought that would be a valid input, since that is a valid program, and the correct decider needs to handle ALL inputs.
The proof takes any specific decider, (arbitrarily chosen) and build an input using a copy of the decider which that one decider, no matter how it processes its input, will give the wrong answer. Note, each decider gets a DIFFERENT input, there isn't just one input that defeats them all.
If that ONE SPECIFIC decider says that the input built that way will halt, then that input will be of a program that loops forever, and the decider is proven to be incorrect.
If that ONE SPECIFIC decider says that the input built that way will never halt, then that input will be a program that halts, and the decider is proven to be incorrect.
If that ONE SPEICIFIC "decider" ends up never halting on that input, then the "decider" is shown to not be a decider.
If that ONE SPECIFIC decider ends up "crashing" and halting on a non-answer, then that decider is proven to be incorrect.
The decider a given input will show broken is fixed an unchangable before we build the input, and it behavior for this input fixed by the nature of programs. That it doesn't give the correct answer isn't the fault of the input, but of the programmer that wrote it and claimed it was correct.
You just don't seem to know enough about programs to understand that their behavior is determined by their code, they do not have "choice" to change their "mind".
YOU are the one claiming that the field full of white cows has black cows because you are wearing blackout glasses and can't see anything.
Soryy, but that is just the simple truth, but a simple truth that seems to be beyond your ability to understand, because it requires you to understand the concept of following the rules.