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 --- never
 reaches its halt state ---
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 23:54:15 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a54ea3444e46e8cdd80311a3f7dab8a11c717833@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$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 03:54:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1932052"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v943ir$ii13$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3556
Lines: 62

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.