Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!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: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never
 reaches its halt state
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 08:12:47 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 77
Message-ID: <v92g8f$p1$1@dont-email.me>
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$3@dont-email.me> <v8pvke$ih0a$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbdw1JzlRS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8v7p3$29r2r$1@dont-email.me> <v8vub1$32fso$14@dont-email.me>
 <1e1fa9bc4bbc00aa65c1a7974bd1bda87687c92b@i2pn2.org>
 <v90di8$38oni$1@dont-email.me>
 <47a76378d634bf0db4017f879d0160793b57125e@i2pn2.org>
 <v9161o$3gaju$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 15:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c97dfd2b0fa781dfb9291aeaceb4463";
	logging-data="801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QAywetHgH3OhPOs+RvYHc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MUdhipjR1gwWSi72EDln91QMybU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4948

On 8/7/2024 8:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/7/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/7/2024 8:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/7/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2024 1:02 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:54:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 2:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-05 13:49:44 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know what it means. But the inflected form "emulated" does not 
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> what you apparently think it means. You seem to think that "DDD
>>>>>>> emulated by HHH" means whatever HHH thinks DDD means but it does 
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>> DDD means what it means whether HHH emulates it or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words when DDD is defined to have a pathological 
>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>> to HHH we can just close our eyes and ignore it and pretend that it
>>>>>> doesn't exist?
>>>>> It doesn't change anything about DDD. HHH was supposed to decide 
>>>>> anything
>>>>> and can't fulfill that promise. That doesn't mean that DDD is somehow
>>>>> faulty, it's just a counterexample.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> *HHH is required to report on the behavior of DDD*
>>>> Anyone that does not understand that HHH meets this criteria
>>>> has insufficient understanding.
>>>
>>> But it doesn't, as a correct simulation of a DDD that calls an HHH 
>>> that returns will stop running, 
>>
>> I really think that you must be a liar here because
>> you have known this for years:
>>
>> On 8/2/2024 11:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>  > ...In some formulations, there are specific states
>>  >    defined as "halting states" and the machine only
>>  >    halts if either the start state is a halt state...
>>
>>  > ...these and many other definitions all have
>>  >    equivalent computing prowess...
>>
>> Anyone that knows C knows that DDD correctly simulated
>> by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return" {halt state}.
>>
> 
> But the problem is that you HHH ODESN'T correctly emulate the DDD it is 
> given, because it aborts its emulation.
> 

Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.

*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*

There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.

Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.

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