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: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated
 by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 23:07:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <569060964dc985138884a3bdff8d0157a52af40e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me>
 <0ec454016dab6f6d6dd5580f5d0eea49569293d8@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oigl$6kik$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ol2g$74lk$1@dont-email.me>
 <476303ac27d94a26dd563468f0ce10407e60034c@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oqfc$8767$1@dont-email.me>
 <ce9b3873fa013760b85c7f73e59456b6f2f0edbe@i2pn2.org>
 <v8otj0$8oip$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ea40e29a4d8e4014f485fdfda743b95148a961a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ouh4$905l$1@dont-email.me>
 <7f796739dcafa335aff88a52af5e458d1253625b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p10u$9ebu$1@dont-email.me>
 <de071bb436f1e79bc9645b5abbb1bea182d9f3e0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p36o$9pm8$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c5358982b75ccc36bc041f980dd152f1b5c6a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p8le$aj5a$1@dont-email.me>
 <ff44c6626923661554540bf75cb50a4921a50381@i2pn2.org>
 <v8peiv$fgqd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 03:07:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1459495"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8peiv$fgqd$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6203
Lines: 123

On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
>>> emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>> instruction.
>>
>> No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without 
>> aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be 
>> non-halting.
>>
> 
> See there?
> 
> DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
> C expert knows this.

But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never aborts.

It doesn't apply to any other PROGRAM DDD built from any other HHH that 
doesn't do that, in particular, any HHH that aborts its emulation and 
returns creates a PROGRAM DDD that does reach that final state.

Sinmce you just admitted below that your DDD isn't a program, it doesn't 
apply, as non-programs can't actually be correct emualted.

> 
>> This means that EVERY OTHER HHH is just wrong, as the DDD that it is 
>> given DOES halt when run, but HHH does emulate long enough to see that 
>> because in INCORRECTLY aborts its emulation, confusing the input it 
>> was actually given with the input given to the non-aborting HHH, 
>> because it thinks that it is that non-aborting HHH itself, but that it 
>> can still abort.
>>
>> What seems to be your problem is that you don't understand what a 
>> program is, and that only actual programs have programtic behavior.
>>
>> You also don't seem to understand that you can't assume that the 
>> impossible happens, that just proves your own insanity.
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
>>> hardly anything about actual programming.
>>
>> I learned a lot, but it seems you don't understand the basic 
>> definition that DDD without HHH provided IS NOT A PROGRAM.
>>
> 
> Of course it is not a program.
> It is also true that 56 is not an English word.

Then you admit it isn't a valid input to a Halt Decider.

I guess you can pack up you work, as you have just admitted it is based 
on a lie.

The Halting problem is about making decisions on the PROGRAM described 
to the decider.

If you input isn't based on a program, than it can't be a valid input to 
a halt decider. PERIOD.

YOu just admitted that all your work is just WORTHLESS.

Sorry you are that stupid.

> 
> That seems to clinch it. You are feigning competence with C.
> That is much better than sadistic pleasure in denying easily
> verified facts. That might get you sent to Hell.

How? Even C defines a PROGRAM as containing all the code of all the 
functions that it calls.

Every statement I have made is true, based on the actual meaning of the 
words used. It also presumes that you were using the words at least 
close to correct, and thus we are treating the "input DDD" as something 
representing an actual program built from DDD.

So, what "lie" are you claiming I have made?

Calling your non-program not a program?

It seems you call other people liars to try to hid your own lies.

It seems that your LIFE has been based on lies, and that is exactly the 
thing that Revelation was talking about. You have punched your one-way 
ticket to the lake of fire. Unless you confess your sins are repent of 
them, that is where you are going to end up by every sign you have shown.

> 
>> That your logic is based on the lie that DDD doesn't include HHH, just 
>> proves your utter stupidity.
>>
>>>
>>> I would hate to call you dishonest when it is just
>>> ordinary ignorance. It can't really be just ordinary
>>> ignorance when it feigns expertise.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, it is your PATHOLOGICAL IGNORANCE that causes the problem, your 
>> trying to blame others for your own stupidity just proves your state 
>> as a pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot with a reckless 
>> disregard for the truth, who even ADMITS that he doesn't have a basis 
>> for his claims.
>>
>> Sorry, you have just killed your reputation and earned your place in 
>> HELL.
> 
> *Feigning competence with C probably would not get you sent to Hell*
> 

I know more about C then you even have.

You are just proving yourself to be a MORON.