Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:41:54 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org> <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org> <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org> <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org> <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org> <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 00:41:55 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2823e9f63915b861ed765b8be41520b0"; logging-data="1004704"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/cF8l63EDEXiDS0qHvvsFG" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:JSFpswhfA/J2vSJ9RKTwsUFMg6M= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org> Bytes: 4302 On 8/10/2024 4:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As I have countlessly proven it only requires enough correctly >>>>>> emulated steps to correctly infer that the input would never >>>>>> reach is "return" instruction halt state. >>>>> >>>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides to abort and >>>>> return, then the DDD that it is emulating WILL return, just after >>>>> HHH has stopped its emulation. >>>>> >>>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the PARTIAL emulation >>>>> that HHH does, because you lie about your false "tautology". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only >>>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible. >>>>> >>>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make you a liar. >>>>> >>>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are talking about do >>>>> the "correct emulation" you base you claim on. >>>>> >>>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses, has just a hint of >>>>> truth, but the core is a lie. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the >>>> semantics of the x86 language. >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) returns a value. >> >> HHH is called by main() there is no directly executed DDD() >> any where in the whole computation. >> > > Except in your requirements, and we can see what it does by adding a > call to DDD from main, since nothing in your system calls main. > All that you need to know is that there is not any directly executed DDD() anywhere in the computation. > Sorry, you don't get to say that DDD doesn't have directly executed > behavior because you never called it. > > You are just showing you utter ignorance of what you talk about. What I said is perfectly true. Your weasel word intentional misinterpretation of what I said is NOT what I actually said. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer