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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 23:51:47 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2aeaf733e84129a33f6c1e603611d00e5a49c1d2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91ekr$3mikp$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 03:51:47 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1814286"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v91ekr$3mikp$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5201
Lines: 88

On 8/7/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/7/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not 
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
>>>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does 
>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological 
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
>>>>>>> doesn't exist?
>>>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide 
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
>>>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>    return;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD*
>>>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria
>>>>> has insufficient understanding.
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH 
>>>> that returns will stop running, 
>>>
>>> I really think that you must be a liar here because
>>> you have known this for years:
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
>>>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
>>>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...
>>>
>>>  > ...these and many other definitions all have
>>>  >    equivalent computing prowess...
>>>
>>> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated
>>> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}.
>>>
>>
>> But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it 
>> is given, because it aborts its emulation.
>>
> 
> 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*
> 
> Everyone can tell that Richard is trying to get way
> with disagreeing with a tautology.


No, you are proven to be just a pathetic ignorant patholgical lias

> 
> No one will accept that when
> *zero to infinity instructions are emulated correctly*
> "that some instructions are not emulated correctly".
> *Richard finally loses*
> 
> 

Your just repeating your lies and not responding to the errors pointsd 
out will be taken as your admittion that you have run out of ides.

The fact that you don't even reply to my messages is just more proof 
that you can't handle the truth.

Sorry, you are just proving your brain is just dead to the truth,