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
Subject: Re: Olcott still seems too dishonest to admit that his HHH doesn't
 correctly emulate DDD
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:59:12 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <22d4fbed2cbc9a969dbb7abf7d48619d6038e1c1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me> <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>
 <19eca01abd992432a5b58232c1dbb6506fa53e44@i2pn2.org>
 <4ae7f93adfcbe33c589ded0288f4e38c97d503fa.camel@gmail.com>
 <jfWdnRzxHen0VS37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:59:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1589171"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <jfWdnRzxHen0VS37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5057
Lines: 93

On 8/5/24 8:41 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 6:53 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 07:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Don't know why I am glad to see someone finally to find out olcott is a
>> "pathological liar and idiot".
>>
>> Save all your time. olcott don't understand the basic "if" logic, that 
>> says
>> everything to me. He don't know anything logic.
>>
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
> }
> 
> Every expert in the C programming language knows that
> DDD correctly simulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "return" instruction halt state.
> 


Nope, only those that think they are experts but don't actually know 
what they are talking about.

If HHH(DDD) return 0, it returns 0 to the PROGRAM DDD that it is 
emulating a copy of, and thus that DDD will halt.

The PARTIAL emulaition of DDD that HHH does is NOT a "correct emulation" 
and thus your premise is just inocrrect.

Note, if *THE* HHH (and there can only be one at a time in a given 
problem) NEVER aborts, (and thus doesn't answer, and thus is not a 
decider) then the DDD built on it will not reach the return instruction, 
but that has clearly not be the only and only HHH that you are talking 
about, and thus your claim is just a LIE.