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 --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:22:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kou4$3b2ta$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lcir$3f6vr$4@dont-email.me> <v8ldcs$3fcgg$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lem0$3ftpo$2@dont-email.me>
 <735401a612caec3eedb531311fd1e09b3d94521d@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lkdb$3h16a$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ee8b34a57f12b0630509183ffbd7c07804634b3@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ll4v$3h8m2$1@dont-email.me>
 <cbde765b8f9e769930b6c8589556907a41d9c256@i2pn2.org>
 <v8lm80$3h8m2$3@dont-email.me> <v8n6mq$3tv07$3@dont-email.me>
 <v8o14v$30uf$1@dont-email.me>
 <950d4eed7965040e841a970d48d5b6f417ff43dc@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 01:22:25 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1814286"; 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: <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4352
Lines: 62

On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not mean
>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does not.
>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological relationship
>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
>>>>> doesn't exist?
>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide 
>>>> anything
>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD*
>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria
>>> has insufficient understanding.
>>
>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH 
>> that returns will stop running, 
> 
> I really think that you must be a liar here because
> you have known this for years:
> 
> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...
> 
>  > ...these and many other definitions all have
>  >    equivalent computing prowess...
> 
> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated
> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}.
> 

But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it is 
given, because it aborts its emulation.

And thus, the fact that its PARTIAL emulaition doesn't reach a final 
state doesn't mean that the program it is emulating, which since your 
HHH does abort and return to its caller, including the DDD that called 
it, that DDD will reach its final state and "halt".

So, you are just proving that you don't know what you are talking about, 
and your "defense" just proved you wrong.

Sorry, you are judt too stupid to know what you are talking about, which 
just makes you into a pathological liar.