Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated
 by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 07:40:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <19eca01abd992432a5b58232c1dbb6506fa53e44@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me>
 <0ec454016dab6f6d6dd5580f5d0eea49569293d8@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oigl$6kik$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ol2g$74lk$1@dont-email.me>
 <476303ac27d94a26dd563468f0ce10407e60034c@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oqfc$8767$1@dont-email.me>
 <ce9b3873fa013760b85c7f73e59456b6f2f0edbe@i2pn2.org>
 <v8otj0$8oip$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ea40e29a4d8e4014f485fdfda743b95148a961a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ouh4$905l$1@dont-email.me>
 <7f796739dcafa335aff88a52af5e458d1253625b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p10u$9ebu$1@dont-email.me>
 <de071bb436f1e79bc9645b5abbb1bea182d9f3e0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p36o$9pm8$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c5358982b75ccc36bc041f980dd152f1b5c6a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p8le$aj5a$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff44c6626923661554540bf75cb50a4921a50381@i2pn2.org>
 <v8peiv$fgqd$1@dont-email.me>
 <569060964dc985138884a3bdff8d0157a52af40e@i2pn2.org>
 <v8pil5$g6tu$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 11:40:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1533822"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8pil5$g6tu$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3425
Lines: 47

On 8/4/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
>>>>> emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>>>> instruction.
>>>>
>>>> No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely 
>>>> without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that 
>>>> DDD will be non-halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See there?
>>>
>>> DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
>>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
>>> C expert knows this.
>>
>> But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never 
>> aborts.
>>
> 
> No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
> 

Really> You have a source for that?

Or is this just another of your "Digonalization" logic claims that you 
retracted.

Claims that "every x knows" are just a fallacy, and you should know it, 
but are, of course, just to dumb to understand.

Here the problem is you just lie about what "Correctly Emulated" means 
for determining the behavior of a program.

Sorry, you are just proving you are a stupid pathetic ignorant 
pathological lying idiot with a reckless disregrad for the truth because 
you beleive your own lies to the point that you don't even look at the 
facts.