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: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by
 HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 18:12:58 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9d0aec4a510e2dbe0f3ae7f6318a657629f06a3c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <bee1046fadd148969411fa9ff78d2f323a05bf26@i2pn2.org>
 <v8jla0$31dqd$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:12:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1215790"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8jla0$31dqd$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2294
Lines: 38

On 8/2/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/2/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that never 
>> aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the HHH that 
>> you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
>>
> 
> That is probably the least stupid answer here recently.
> Mikko, Joes, and Fred would probably not do as well. Let's
> see if the others can catch up to at least this much.
> 
> Mike is usually pretty good at his analysis until recently.
> He may not understand this key aspect as well as you do.
> 
> 

So you accept that the only DDD that is non-halting is the DDD that 
calls the HHH that does a fully correct emulation of its input, and thus 
doesn't abort it?

That means you admit that all the other HHHs, when given the DDD that 
calls them, are just wrong.

OK. you admit that you proof doesn't works.

SO LONG, and thanks for all the fish.