Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 09:51:49 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6g444$pdc2$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6go4d$sg7f$1@dont-email.me> <v6ikv5$19h6q$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jguf$1ctoi$5@dont-email.me> <v6ji1d$1dpoc$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me> <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
 <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:51:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cb7a71f238b6f1f0fff1b8b0208457d0";
	logging-data="2620394"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ifCSMcWjZQSVrySQ05/Ad"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gqfb65dP4Od2xwIB+HBDoFX0HZc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4850

On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   > That means that HHH doesn't return, in particular that it 
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>   > abort.
>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly 
>>>>>>>>>> emulates
>>>>>>>>>> 1 to ∞ steps of DDD can't make it past the above line of code 
>>>>>>>>>> no matter
>>>>>>>>>> what.
>>>>>>>>> That line being the call to itself -> it can't simulate itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have a dead cat in your driveway does not mean that
>>>>>> you have a peanut butter sandwich on your front porch.
>>>>>> It has taken you at least 1000 messages to see that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it
>>>>>> to the second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>
>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD and 
>>>>> HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would you bet your immortal soul that DDD simulated
>>>> by HHH (as provided above) would terminate normally?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a ambiguous statement, showing your attempt at deciet.
>>>
>>
>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language. By this
>> measure when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>> by each pure function x86 emulator HHH (of the infinite
>> set of every HHH that can possibly exist) then DDD cannot
>> possibly reach its own machine address of 00002174 and halt.
> 
> And thus you stipulate that you are a LIAR.
> 
> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct 
> simulation is a FULL simulation
In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that
when 1 step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD
are correctly emulated.

Repent of this lie or risk damnation.

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer