Path: ...!news.misty.com!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 --- reaches
 its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it
 does since it is a decider.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 21:05:02 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <352096a93343dd1c5614d27c5e300864b48e2698@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
 <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
 <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@i2pn2.org>
 <v9455t$im42$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ac18da75f5f8e4bcaf17800919bb5dc2658d33c@i2pn2.org>
 <v955rd$o1gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <adc1aa9dbcaab1112f613fb262b17b64a11619a1@i2pn2.org>
 <v96dji$8lqu$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 01:05:02 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2032647"; 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: <v96dji$8lqu$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7164
Lines: 129

On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/24 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/8/2024 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/8/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
>>>>>>>>>>> every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which 
>>>>>>>>>> is what "Halting" is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally something besides
>>>>>>>>> the strawman deception,
>>>>>>>>> disagreeing with a tautology, or
>>>>>>>>> pure ad hominem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You must first agree with everything that I said above
>>>>>>>>> before we can get to this last and final point that it
>>>>>>>>> not actually directly referenced above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do I need to agree to a LIE?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Two key facts*
>>>>>>>>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
>>>>>>>>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WRONG, as proven.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does, 
>>>>>>> Now you have to agree with (a).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why? since you statement was proven false, the accuracy of one of 
>>>>>> the terms doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess you don't understand how logic works, you have already 
>>>>>> shown that there is a lie in your proof, and therefore it is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> you changed the subject and found no lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, since HHH is being asked about HALTING, and the definition of 
>>>> Halting is about the behavior of the PROGRAM, 
>>>
>>> I will not discuss that with you until after you agree
>>> to these two tautologies proving that you intend to be honest.
>>>
>>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
>>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>>
>> I have shown that your (b) is NOT a tautology, unless you stipulate 
>> that your HHH NEVER aborts its emulation and return EVER.
>>
> 
> One thing good about you being stuck in rebuttal mode
> it that this keeps making my words get clearer and clearer.

No, you are stuck in LYING MODE.
> 
> When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
> we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, and that 
one isn't a decider.

You just confuse the fact that a PARTIAL emulation not reaching a final 
state doesn't show that this input doesn't reach a final state later

And, you seem to not understand that the code of HHH is part of the code 
of the PROGRAM DDD that must be given to HHH to decide, and thus every 
one of your infinite set have a DIFFERENT input from all the others, and 
thus you can't use one emulation to tell you what the other emulations 
will do, in particular, the VERY DIFFERENT HHH that never aborts, 
creates a radically different input then the ones that do abort and return.

If you want to try to claim the input is only the bytes of the C 
function DDD, then you are just demonstrating that you don't know what a 
program is, and NO HHH can emulate that input more than 4 instructions, 
so you claim is just a LIE>

> 
> Now you are trying to get away with claiming that there
> are some HHH that do not belong to the set of every HHH
> that can possibly exist.
> 

Nope, where did I say that? That seems to be just another of your 
impossible so substantiate claims that proves you to be a liar.

I am just pointing out that partial emulation do not show that the 
complete behavior (which is what halting by definitiion looks at) does 
not later hit a final state, and in fact, we can PROVE for all your HHH 
that do abort and return that the DDD built on them DOES halt, and thus 
all of them are incorrect to say their input is non-halting.

Sorry, you just don't have anything to stand on but your bluster and 
double-talk.