Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:05:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me>
	<v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me> <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
	<v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
	<v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me> <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me>
	<v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me> <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
	<04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
	<v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
	<a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
	<v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
	<6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
	<v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
	<7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
	<v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
	<744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
	<v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
	<c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
	<v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
	<56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
	<v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
	<1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
	<v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 08:05:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3002436"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4651
Lines: 53

Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line
>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD
>>>>>>>>>> and HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1
>>>>>>> to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86
>>>>>>> emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>> exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of
>>>>>>> 00002174 and halt.
>>>>>> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct
>>>>>> simulation is a FULL simulation
>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1
>>>>> step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>> emulated.
>>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie
>>> to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you
>>> know it.
>> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
>> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH
> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
Please don't insult ADD people.
You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.
The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating
input.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.