Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: And the Richer Petard Horror Show resumes HHH(DDD)==0
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 08:43:48 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <ve3cul$26g97$2@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2024 15:43:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="369876f7fbf3669ecd1d4217493c4943";
	logging-data="2310439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tGUX76mWV5/9kjDZqUQRR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vnP+1WLUIm9k+gLQi3AwzumCudE=
In-Reply-To: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3783

On 10/8/2024 7:49 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> ... after a short break.
> 
>      Richard -- no-one sane carries on an extended discussion with
> someone they [claim to] consider a "stupid liar".  So which are you?
> Not sane?  Or stupid enough to try to score points off someone who is
> incapable of conceding them?  Or lying when you describe Peter?  You
> must surely have better things to do.  Meanwhile, you surely noticed
> that Peter is running rings around you.
> 

Thanks for that part.

>      Peter -- you surely have better things to do.  No-one sensible
> is reading the repetitive stuff.  Decades, and myriads of articles, ago
> people here tried to help you knock your points into shape, but anything
> sensible is swamped by the insults.  Free advice, worth roughly what you
> are paying for it:  step back, and summarise [from scratch, not using HHH
> and DDD (etc) without explanation] (a) what it is you think you are trying
> to prove and (b) what progress you claim to have made.  No more than one
> side of paper.  Assume that people who don't actively insult you are, in
> fact, trying to help.
> 

Most people that "try to help" do so only within the
foundational false assumption that I must be incorrect.

The DDD / HHH model is the simplest essence of my key points.
It only requires knowledge of software engineering thus
requires no knowledge of computer science.

This is the foundational axiom of my proof:
*Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions*

When I make key clarifications as I have made below those only
glancing at what I say never notice these key clarifications.

*Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH(DDD) rejects input DDD*
HHH is an emulating termination analyzer that takes the machine
address of DDD as input then emulates the x86 machine language
of DDD until a non-terminating behavior pattern is recognized.

HHH recognizes this pattern when HHH emulates itself emulating DDD

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

*Terminating is a property of finite string machine descriptions*
One cannot simply ignore the actual behavior specified by the
finite string such that

DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns.

Thus each of these HHH emulators that does return 0 correctly
reports the above non-terminating behavior.

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm x86utm operating system

Every executed HHH that returns 0 correctly reports that
no DDD emulated by its corresponding HHH ever returns.


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