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: key error in all the proofs --- Correction of Fred
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 10:28:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6590517a070695b81751db1b64c3d26019ee9b13@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me> <v9hmfc$c71c$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ic89$f16v$6@dont-email.me>
 <06ea0f3a1ff938643b3dfefdf62af15559593733@i2pn2.org>
 <v9iqgc$go4j$2@dont-email.me>
 <LcucnRYb5ZiYhyD7nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9j6ci$jo32$1@dont-email.me> <v9kdp9$srkm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9ku3k$v95g$1@dont-email.me> <v9nbqr$1dmui$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nf3o$1dvef$3@dont-email.me> <v9nkhd$1ertd$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:28:09 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2782046"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9nmj5$1f34m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3157
Lines: 39

On 8/16/24 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/16/2024 8:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-16 12:02:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>>
>>> I must go one step at a time.
>>
>> That's reasonable in a discussion. The one thing you were discussing
>> above is what is the meaning of the output of HHH. Its OK to stay
>> at that step until we are sure it is understood.
>>
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> Unless an unlimited emulation of DDD by HHH
> can reach the "return" instruction of DDD it is
> construed that this instance of DDD never halts.

But that also construes that HHH is a program that DOES an unlimited 
emulation of DDD, and thus isn't a decider

> 
> For three years now at least most reviewers insisted
> on disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language.
> 

No, the problem is HHH can't be two different things at once, and since 
DDD includes its HHH as part of its definition, the DDD that the HHH 
that DDD calls, can see any other DDD than the one that called IT, and 
not some other HHH.


The fact that you just don't understand that proper way to setup a 
correct emulator that can emulate any program given to it just wrecks 
your argument and renders your logic void.