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 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.
Sorry, but you are just showing your stupidity with trying to pass of your strawman as a replacement for the halting problem.
You don't even seem to know enough about what is in the domain of the logic you are talking about.
Your DDD, being a non-leaf C function, can't be emulated, and doesn't have "halting" as a property to be decided.
Thus, HHH can't emulate "the input", but needs to improperly presume things not stated, and thus you logic is just invalid.
You are showing that you are nothing but a ignorant pathological liar.
If you want to talk about some mythological hypothetical alternate system, you first need to fully DEFINE it, its axioms and its rules.
This, as you have made clear, is clearly beyound your ability, so you just resort to your ignorant lying about what you are talking about, use meaningless double-talk and equivocations and every fallacy you can get your hands on.