Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply right --- Try to prove otherwise ---
 pinned down
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 09:46:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v3hf2e$2psm0$4@i2pn2.org>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me>
	<v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
	<v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me> <v38eq4$2foi0$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v38fe0$1bndb$1@dont-email.me> <v38g31$2foi0$11@i2pn2.org>
	<v38gi5$1bndb$3@dont-email.me> <v38ici$2fohv$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v38j17$1c8ir$2@dont-email.me> <v38jgo$2foi0$14@i2pn2.org>
	<v38jv9$1c8ir$4@dont-email.me> <v39agi$1jiql$1@dont-email.me>
	<v39v3h$1mtd9$5@dont-email.me> <v3b9kj$2im02$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3bale$222n5$1@dont-email.me> <v3bbs2$2im01$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3bcre$22a8n$1@dont-email.me> <v3bduk$2im01$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v3bedb$22f8h$1@dont-email.me> <v3bfbm$2im01$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v3bg39$22o6m$1@dont-email.me> <v3cbhu$2k3ld$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3clo2$28p7n$1@dont-email.me> <v3dft1$2lfup$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v3dhob$2dio8$1@dont-email.me> <v3dk0d$2lfup$2@i2pn2.org>
	<v3dkf2$2e2po$1@dont-email.me> <v3dmnc$2lfup$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v3do66$2ejq2$1@dont-email.me> <v3fq16$2o13h$6@i2pn2.org>
	<v3fq8q$2teib$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2024 09:46:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2945728"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3379
Lines: 36

Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:45:47 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/1/2024 1:41 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 31 May 2024 18:57:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> *If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
>>> *final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*
>> Which makes HH not terminate either, or incorrectly abort.
>> 
> I will not respond to any of your replies while you continue to play
> head games.
What do you mean? As a simulator, H can’t halt if its input D doesn’t.

> *Changing the subject away from this is construed as a head game* DD
> correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach past its
> own line 03 in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.
Then H is not pure.

> In case you didn't know pure functions must halt because they must
> return a value.
H is such a function. Where does it return?

>>> *When we get as specific as the actual x86 machine code of* *DD then
>>> all liars are exposed*
>> The machine code doesn't matter. Did you know that implementations can
>> be wrong, i.e. not meet their spec?
Which your machine code is buggy.

-- 
joes