Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:00:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6e2cbff6f29523d3f3674042aab172499402a43e@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@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>
	<56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
	<v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
	<1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
	<v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
	<4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org>
	<v6r6b4$30qtt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:00:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3138994"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5881
Lines: 80

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:08:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 7/12/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a
>>>>> lie to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated
>>>>> and you know it.
>>>> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
>>>> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps!
>> Please don't insult ADD people.

> When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not see these words I
> have to know why this is.
> My aim is effective communication. I can't fix the issue unless I know
> what the issue it.
You communicate very ineffectively. You should listen to others and 
respond to their questions.

> The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard is a Liar. If is is
> Richards's ADD then repeating the same sentence a dozen times seems to
> help.
3. Richard is annoying but right, and you are a delusional spammer who
can't rephrase.

>> You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
>> They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.
> when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in the infinite set of
> every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT
> HALT.
DDD halts if HHH does, period. And HHH shall be a decider.

> Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
> shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD pair that I was
> talking about for weeks and weeks.
What do you think the shells are?

> To counter this I started talking about every element of the infinite
> set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly exist.
Nobody is interested in an incomplete simulator.

-- 
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.