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 --- reaches
 its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it
 does since it is a decider.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 21:46:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6b16c88705f6c0b6a82a454f8d18c5ea9d665a02@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
 <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
 <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@i2pn2.org>
 <v9455t$im42$1@dont-email.me>
 <3ac18da75f5f8e4bcaf17800919bb5dc2658d33c@i2pn2.org>
 <v955rd$o1gt$1@dont-email.me>
 <adc1aa9dbcaab1112f613fb262b17b64a11619a1@i2pn2.org>
 <v96dji$8lqu$1@dont-email.me>
 <352096a93343dd1c5614d27c5e300864b48e2698@i2pn2.org>
 <v96fhf$90t7$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 01:46:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2032647"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v96fhf$90t7$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 7031
Lines: 128

On 8/9/24 9:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/9/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/9/24 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/9/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/9/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/8/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
>>>>>>>>>>>>> none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
>>>>>>>>>>>>> every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD 
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is what "Halting" is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally something besides
>>>>>>>>>>> the strawman deception,
>>>>>>>>>>> disagreeing with a tautology, or
>>>>>>>>>>> pure ad hominem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You must first agree with everything that I said above
>>>>>>>>>>> before we can get to this last and final point that it
>>>>>>>>>>> not actually directly referenced above.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do I need to agree to a LIE?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Two key facts*
>>>>>>>>>>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, as proven.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does, 
>>>>>>>>> Now you have to agree with (a).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why? since you statement was proven false, the accuracy of one 
>>>>>>>> of the terms doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess you don't understand how logic works, you have already 
>>>>>>>> shown that there is a lie in your proof, and therefore it is wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you changed the subject and found no lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, since HHH is being asked about HALTING, and the definition 
>>>>>> of Halting is about the behavior of the PROGRAM, 
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not discuss that with you until after you agree
>>>>> to these two tautologies proving that you intend to be honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
>>>>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>>>>
>>>> I have shown that your (b) is NOT a tautology, unless you stipulate 
>>>> that your HHH NEVER aborts its emulation and return EVER.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One thing good about you being stuck in rebuttal mode
>>> it that this keeps making my words get clearer and clearer.
>>
>> No, you are stuck in LYING MODE.
>>>
>>> When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
>>> we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
>>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.
>>
>> But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, and 
>> that one isn't a decider.
>>
> 
> In other words you are trying to keep getting away
> with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
> emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
> it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
> 
> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
> *Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
> 

So, I guess you don't understand English.

Where did I say that simulating N instructions correctly is not 
simulating ANY instructions correctly.

It is simulaing Not-All instructions correctly, but it is required to 
simulate ALL instructions correctly.

I guess this is just another of your uncounted LIES based on made up 
facts that you just can't ever find proof of.

YOU are the one stuck in repeat mode.I respond to your message, you 
don't actually address mine, (because apparently you have nothing to say 
about it, because you haven't found a suitable lie to handle it) so you 
just repeat your same DISPROVEN claim.

Sorry, you are just proving your ignorance.