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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:30:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org>
 <v988fu$r9k6$1@dont-email.me>
 <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org>
 <v98ag9$rj63$1@dont-email.me>
 <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org>
 <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7a568982428ce74da1635a0537c47580063d45b@i2pn2.org>
 <v98g9c$sres$1@dont-email.me>
 <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org>
 <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:30:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2124525"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4736
Lines: 74

On 8/10/24 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2024 3:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/10/24 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2024 2:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of the set
>>>>>>>>> of positive integers indicating the number of  x86 instructions
>>>>>>>>> of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is the mistake that I corrected*
>>>>
>>>> But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, since 
>>>> you haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly emulates 
>>>> ANY of the instructions of the program DDD after the call HHH, as 
>>>> everything says it jumps to something other than the correct x86 
>>>> emulation of the program DDD that it was given.
>>>>
>>>> But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and 
>>>>>>>> then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, 
>>>> then returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Yes this is your ADD*
>>> We have only been talking about DDD emulated by HHH.
>>
>> If you mean the emulation of DDD by HHH, you need to say so.
>>
>> DDD is one and only one thing, and that is the PROGRAM DDD. The fact 
>> that you want the DDD that is emulated by HHH doesn't change it.
>>
> 
> It is a tautology that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH
> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

But that only applies for the HHH that DOES (Completely) correctly 
emulate its input DDD, and thus doesn't apply to DDD built on ANY other 
of your HHH that only partially emulate their input and then returns, 
those do reach the their final return instruction even though the 
emulation by their HHH doesn't make it there.

You are just caught with two contradictory definitions of HHH, and thus 
proof that you are a liar.

> 
> May God have mercy on those souls that lie about this
> as trollish head games.
> 
> 

You need to be more concerned about your soul. Remember, you just told 
an infinite number of lies, and repeat them every time you repeat that 
claim.

It seems your one hope is that God might consider you mentally 
incompetent, but being self-inflicted it probably doesn't count.