Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.bofh.team!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
 reach its own return instruction final state?
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:15:56 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f7774361481dbfe1caa6fe1cfea43458bd2a1b33@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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:15:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1459495"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v8oj1n$6kik$3@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3615
Lines: 59

On 8/4/24 2:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:
>>>  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never
>>>>> reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no substitute 
>>>> for facts.
>>>> The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> That is the right answer to the wrong question.
>>> I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
>>> reaches its "return" instruction.
>>
>> But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,
> 
> When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
> emulation and not and direct execution.

In other words, you admit that you are lying that HHH is actually an 
emulator, it is just a PO-emulator, and you have no proof of what 
PO-emulation means.

> 
> DDD emulated by HHH a googleplex levels deep is included
> in DDD emulated by HHH.
> 

Not emulation, just PO-emulation, and gives an incorrect behavior for 
the input because it is aborted.


> Yo keep screwing around trying to twist the meaning of the
> actual words that I say.

Nope, YOU DO. Emulation has a well defined meaning,. which you don't 
seem to understand. It doesn't "Change Levels". (There is a version 
where it can, but only for UNCONDITIONAL emulation, which HHH doesn't do 
if it can abort, so that can't be the version you are talking about).


Sorry, you are just proving how ignorant you are of the things you are 
talking about, you are now ADMITTING that you have been lying with your 
use of mis-defined terms.

You have been told that you don't get to change the meaning of terms and 
stay in the same logic system.

That is just the technique of your father, the master of lies.