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: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:08:13 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 02:08:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2973854"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5043
Lines: 88

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:
>>>>>>>>>>>   > That means that HHH doesn't return, in particular that it 
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>   > abort.
>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that 
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it past the above line of code 
>>>>>>>>>>> no matter
>>>>>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>>>>>> That line being the call to itself -> it can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have a dead cat in your driveway does not mean that
>>>>>>> you have a peanut butter sandwich on your front porch.
>>>>>>> It has taken you at least 1000 messages to see that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you bet your immortal soul that DDD simulated
>>>>> by HHH (as provided above) would terminate normally?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a ambiguous statement, showing your attempt at deciet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And thus you stipulate that you are a LIAR.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Repent of this lie or risk damnation.
> 

WHAT LIE?

That x86 defines that every instruction DDD/HHH that gets emulatiod 
included the definition that the next instruction WILL run?

That is just truth.

Calling the truth a lie is just more of your lies.

I think you have already damned yourself.