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

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:
>

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.

>
They are specified in a way that makes your "every DDD" and "any DDD"
bad (perhaps even incorrect) use of Common language.
>

>
I specify the infinite sets with each element numbered
on the top of page 2 of my paper. Back in April of 2023
>
https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D

>
You have also specifed that HHH is the program in your GitHub repository.
>

>
Should I assume that you must be lying about
this because you did not quote where I did this?

>
You forget how many times you have posted the link to your "fully functioning code"?
>
You can't have it both ways, either that *IS* the code of HHH.
>

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

But it gets the wrong answer for the halting problem, as DDD dpes halt.

 My example code sets a kind of mathematical induction like
pattern AND YOU KNOW IT !!!
 

Nope, "code" can't be an "induction pattern", that is just a category error,
Clearly you don't understand what an induction pattern IS.

DDD emulated by HHH N times never reaches its "return"
instruction final state for any value of N. From this
we can infer that this remains true for infinite emulation.
 

But the emulation of DDD by HHH isn't the proper criteria, and isn't even a valid criteria for a decider.
A partial emulation not reaching the final state does not prove that the input is non-halting.
You are just proving your stupidity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
 

So, how does your example meet those requirement.
All you are doing is proving you are just a stupid liar that has no idea what he is talking about.