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 ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 16:01:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 20:01:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2124526"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v98g9c$sres$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4130
Lines: 62

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.

You seem to need the sloppy words so you can play your shell games.

Sorry, but you are just too stupid to know the meaning of the English words.

> 
> That after hundreds of messages you can't keep track of
> that seems to indicate that you are ADD is much worse
> that I ever suspected. I am happy for you that you can
> keep this hidden from your employer.
> 

No, I keep on pointing out the LIE that you are trying to perpetrate.

Since you have proven that is your method, I will insist on using the 
proper terms.