Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches
 its halt state
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 08:15:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v8kp6s$3c5h2$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8ld1f$3f6vr$5@dont-email.me> <v8ldl0$3ennf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8lfb9$3g2jl$1@dont-email.me> <v8lgsr$3gadt$2@dont-email.me>
 <v8lhrr$3gkbk$1@dont-email.me> <v8n6un$3tv08$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8nums$1n09$6@dont-email.me> <v8vah7$29sva$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vr7e$32fso$2@dont-email.me> <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2024 15:15:46 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7c97dfd2b0fa781dfb9291aeaceb4463";
	logging-data="801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YTCl7Xt6oCxPYl7YYFLhn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bxw+ew9a1bCLrOmnD/SeExnUjEM=
In-Reply-To: <v91vc4$3qp1r$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3668

On 8/8/2024 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 07.aug.2024 om 15:01 schreef olcott:
>> On 8/7/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 04.aug.2024 om 15:11 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:26 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 03.aug.2024 om 17:20 schreef olcott:>>
>>>>>> When you try to show how DDD simulated by HHH does
>>>>>> reach its "return" instruction you must necessarily
>>>>>> must fail unless you cheat by disagreeing with the
>>>>>> semantics of C. That you fail to have a sufficient
>>>>>> understanding of the semantics of C is less than no
>>>>>> rebuttal what-so-ever.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately that is not what I try, because I understand that HHH 
>>>>> cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>    return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In other words when HHH simulates itself simulating DDD it
>>>> is supposed to do something other than simulating itself
>>>> simulating DDD ???  Do you expect it to make a cup of coffee?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is English too difficult for you. I said HHH cannot do it correctly.
>>
>> *According to an incorrect criteria of correct*
>> You keep trying to get away with disagreeing with
>> the semantics of the x86 language. *That is not allowed*
>>
> Again accusations without evidence.
> We proved that HHH deviated from the semantics of the x86 language by 
> skipping the last few instructions of a halting program.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

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