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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:53:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <86cbe5924d3495f56986483f79567af3e6efde8a@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org>
 <v988fu$r9k6$1@dont-email.me>
 <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org>
 <v98ag9$rj63$1@dont-email.me>
 <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org>
 <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7a568982428ce74da1635a0537c47580063d45b@i2pn2.org>
 <v98g9c$sres$1@dont-email.me>
 <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org>
 <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
 <e594b5b47303846026e79ab95d1ba6b528ba6267@i2pn2.org>
 <v98leq$tna8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
 <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 21:53:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2124525"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3716
Lines: 48

On 8/10/24 5:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have countlessly proven it only requires enough correctly
>>>>> emulated steps to correctly infer that the input would never
>>>>> reach is "return" instruction halt state.
>>>>
>>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides to abort and 
>>>> return, then the DDD that it is emulating WILL return, just after 
>>>> HHH has stopped its emulation.
>>>>
>>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the PARTIAL emulation that 
>>>> HHH does, because you lie about your false "tautology".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
>>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
>>>>
>>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make you a liar.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are talking about do 
>>>> the "correct emulation" you base you claim on.
>>>>
>>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses, has just a hint of 
>>>> truth, but the core is a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
>>> semantics of the x86 language.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) returns a value.
> 
> HHH is called by main() there is no directly executed DDD()
> any where in the whole computation.
> 

Except in your requirements, and we can see what it does by adding a 
call to DDD from main, since nothing in your system calls main.

Sorry, you don't get to say that DDD doesn't have directly executed 
behavior because you never called it.

You are just showing you utter ignorance of what you talk about.