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

On 2024-11-24 14:13:22 +0000, olcott said:

On 11/24/2024 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-23 14:04:07 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/23/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-22 16:45:52 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/22/2024 2:30 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-21 15:32:38 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/21/2024 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-20 22:03:43 +0000, olcott said:
 

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?

 No, you may assume that I was confused by your lack of clarity and
in particular by your bad choice of names.
 If you clearly state that HHH is not the function HHH that you have
in your GitHub repository then I needn't to consider the possiblity
that you just triying to deceive by equivcation.
 

 HHH is one concrete example of an infinite set of instances
such that DDD is emulated by HHH N times.

 That sentence says that there is only one HHH, contradicting your
earlier statement that HHH is a generic term for every member of some
set.
 

 You seem to be a damned liar: "infinite set of instances"

 You mean you lied when you said "one concrete example"?

 One element of an infinite set does not say there
is no infinite set. Is says there is an infinite set.

 True but irrelevant.

 The behavior of one element of that infinite set proves
that every element of that infinite set has the same property:

No, it does not. The natural number 3 is an element of the infinite
set of all natural numbers. It has the property of being a prime number.
It does not prove that every natural number is a prime number.
Which is irrelevant to the fact that you have used "HHH" in confilicting
ways.
--
Mikko