Path: ...!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 22:48:43 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <v943ir$ii13$1@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <v92ge1$p1$2@dont-email.me>
 <f37108f5c9868fc309f42ef78982e2c865ad544c@i2pn2.org>
 <v940uh$hqmp$1@dont-email.me>
 <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 05:48:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bb86fb6b7518b299c8da34bf84593b17";
	logging-data="608291"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1942K+NOizpXZpLGHTvO7YS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Qha90TOAcbVHJpeS2GZu9l/IyXU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ca6cbe14b2f6d8e912084e2db0d86078e5c113d4@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3441

On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is 
>>> what "Halting" is.
>>>
>>
>> Finally something besides
>> the strawman deception,
>> disagreeing with a tautology, or
>> pure ad hominem.
>>
>> You must first agree with everything that I said above
>> before we can get to this last and final point that it
>> not actually directly referenced above.
>>
> 
> Why do I need to agree to a LIE?
> 
> 
>> *Two key facts*
>> (a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
>> (b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>>
> 
> WRONG, as proven.
> 
> The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does, 
Now you have to agree with (a).

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