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,sci.logic
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as
 non-halting.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:01:41 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d5b353735834ab1cf42856b68c78a32045cd5c39@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6m7si$1uq86$2@dont-email.me> <v6mhc7$20hbo$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:01:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2844748"; 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: <v6mhr3$20kkr$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2419
Lines: 45

On 7/10/24 1:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/10/2024 12:45 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 10.jul.2024 om 17:03 schreef olcott:
>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>> }
>>
>> Unneeded complexity. It is equivalent to:
>>
>>         int main()
>>         {
>>           return HHH(main);
>>         }
>>
> 
> 
> Every time any HHH correctly emulates DDD it calls the
> x86utm operating system to create a separate process
> context with its own memory virtual registers and stack,
> thus each recursively emulated DDD is a different instance.
> 
> The instance of main() can't possibly halt HHH correctly
> aborts and rejects as non-halting. The entirely different
> instance of main() that calls HHH only halts because HHH
> was correct to abort its simulated instance.
> 

But ALL instances of the smsame program must behavir the same, or you 
are proving that your HHH isn't actualy a pure function, or doesn't 
correct emulate its input.

So, it CAN'T say that its emulated version is correct determined to not 
return without admiting that something about it make it different when 
emulated which means either it fails to be pure, or fails to correctly 
emulate itself.

So, you just blew up your argument in a great big LIE.