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: Proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior --- reviewers
 disagree with basic facts
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 13:30:16 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <d8000f2fb812466d224bc0ebf7480bdec7a08ad2@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9gv4k$4sc4$1@dont-email.me>
 <561f876601b0329c0260bac26f8b6dfb6e28647f@i2pn2.org>
 <v9h5af$9jn6$1@dont-email.me>
 <bdfcf881b9a9ce7e2bc197339d14a01beae1116d@i2pn2.org>
 <XYucnXqdgeWiVSH7nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <b8a96bbfe0516cf99b6f38c23fb4eccc3810ee7e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9krc5$uqhs$1@dont-email.me> <v9l7hf$vao1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v9laed$113gd$2@dont-email.me>
 <EbecnaOe1ajC1yP7nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9llh9$12l6c$2@dont-email.me> <v9mt9h$1bdeu$3@dont-email.me>
 <P6-cnWf3Z5zzLyL7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9od8b$1i745$1@dont-email.me>
 <b5c6b0c3bf38cd73a9b84b7d96e2d45a53404dde@i2pn2.org>
 <v9of3l$1i745$3@dont-email.me>
 <e665a0048485910b8f4ad3c7a1c56ef1d94895d3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9sq2d$2c67u$15@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 17:30:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3024473"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v9sq2d$2c67u$15@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3595
Lines: 47

On 8/18/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/17/2024 7:11 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:08:05 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/16/2024 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/16/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't ever get to the point of the computer science because
>>>>> reviewers disagree with these basic facts.
>>>> No, the problem is that your "facts" just disagree with the computere
>>>> science you claim to be doing.
>>> We never get anywhere near the computer science because people disagree
>>> with 100% concrete fully specified semantics.
>> WITH WHAT
>>
>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>     HHH(DDD);
>>>>> }
>>>> Which is NOT a program
>>> I am talking above the behavior of the C function it is dishonest to
>>> change the subject as any basis of rebuttal.
>> This is on topic. That function doesn't compile, since it's missing the
>> code of HHH.
>>
> 
> x86utm takes the compiled Halt7.obj file of this c program
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> Thus making all of the code of HHH directly available to DDD.
> 
> *I am now only talking about this thread*
> [Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth ---V2]
> 


And thus the input to HHH isn't the byte you try too app off as it but 
ALL of the code of Halt7.obj, so every HHH sees a DIFFERENT input so you 
can't use the results of one to try to provide data for a different one 
without making the mistake of talking about cats by looking at 10 story 
office buildings.

This means that the ONLY HHH that the above applies to is when HHH is 
non-aborting, and every HHH that does abort, can't use that, as its DDD 
doesn't call the needed HHH, but itself.

This means that DDD is Halting, if, and only if, HHH aborts its 
emulation and returns, or DDD is non-halting, if, and only if, HHH NEVER 
aborts its emulation.