Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!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 --- never reaches its halt state --- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 23:15:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 06:15:58 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb86fb6b7518b299c8da34bf84593b17"; logging-data="612482"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/nbh0QxTqjbC9HjQPWlAI5" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:B2IkeJfTPlFRr055KgWRcBfSoRI= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 4031 On 8/8/2024 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 8/8/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> void DDD() >>>>>> { >>>>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>>>    return; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely >>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In >>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach >>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this* >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level >>>>>> every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD >>>>>> cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily >>>>>> erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is >>>>> what "Halting" is. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Finally something besides >>>> the strawman deception, >>>> disagreeing with a tautology, or >>>> pure ad hominem. >>>> >>>> You must first agree with everything that I said above >>>> before we can get to this last and final point that it >>>> not actually directly referenced above. >>>> >>> >>> Why do I need to agree to a LIE? >>> >>> >>>> *Two key facts* >>>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD. >>>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state. >>>> >>> >>> WRONG, as proven. >>> >>> The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does, >> Now you have to agree with (a). >> > > Why? since you statement was proven false, the accuracy of one of the > terms doesn't matter. > > I guess you don't understand how logic works, you have already shown > that there is a lie in your proof, and therefore it is wrong. you changed the subject and found no lie. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer