Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 21:21:20 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5ieqg$17ej0$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v598l4$c4if$1@dont-email.me> <v5cuta$10m6o$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d0bf$162m0$1@dont-email.me> <v5d188$10m6p$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d1ev$16a8b$1@dont-email.me> <v5d1mm$10m6o$8@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d3b4$16k7k$1@dont-email.me> <v5d4gj$10m6o$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d81s$17fhi$1@dont-email.me> <v5d8fr$10m6o$12@i2pn2.org>
 <v5d9iv$1bem6$2@dont-email.me> <v5d9s6$10m6p$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5daji$1bll8$1@dont-email.me> <v5db62$10m6o$13@i2pn2.org>
 <v5dckm$1bteo$1@dont-email.me> <v5e87h$12a1a$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ef4n$1ihbr$1@dont-email.me> <v5frvi$14bcm$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v5fslr$1uc3o$1@dont-email.me> <v5fto2$14bcm$9@i2pn2.org>
 <v5fu06$1umhr$1@dont-email.me> <v5fvtf$14bcn$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5g1nr$1v8bm$1@dont-email.me> <v5g24k$14bcm$10@i2pn2.org>
 <v5g2ds$1v8bm$3@dont-email.me> <v5gs85$15l89$1@i2pn2.org>
 <v5h5c4$24jbd$9@dont-email.me> <v5i8vg$17ej1$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v5i9fh$2cko8$2@dont-email.me> <v5i9j2$17ej0$2@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ibfc$2cko8$5@dont-email.me> <v5icdm$17ej1$7@i2pn2.org>
 <v5ie9f$2dcfs$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:21:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1292896"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v5ie9f$2dcfs$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3958
Lines: 51

On 6/26/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2024 7:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2024 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>
>>> Mike understands how your use of static variables is cheating.
>>> Others here will be baffled and confused.
>>>
>>
>> But the rules are the rules, and you can't create rules you didn't state.
>>
> 
> If you really have such brain damage that you cannot remember
> that we already discussed this and closed it I will start
> praying for you.

And if I am allowed, or even required to remember that, then I can 
remember that your Hs are all designed to be Halt Deciders, and thus the 
only correct behavior for their input is that of the direct execution of 
the program the input represents.

> 
> YOU CAN'T FREAKING USE ANY STATIC LOCAL VARIABLES TO
> CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR AND YOU KNOW WHY YOU CAN'T USE
> THEM SO FREAKING QUIT IT !!!
> 
> _DDD()
> [00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
> [00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
> [00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
> [0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
> [0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
> [00002182] 5d               pop ebp
> [00002183] c3               ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
> 
> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
> by x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
> 
> 

But it does, it just isn't emulated by H0.

The "Correct Behavior" is not limited by the PARTIAL simulation done by H0.

If H0 stops simulating and returns, it does not complete the CORRECT 
EMULATION of the input as defined, and thus can make no comment of the 
future that it can not prove. And, since the complete and correct 
emulation of the input does return if H0 ever returns an answer, it is 
impossible for it to correct say it doesn't.

You just don't understand the meaning of the word you are using