Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Richard given an official cease-and-desist order regarding counter-factual libelous statements
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 11:39:30 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <veilc2$14jlk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ve39pb$24k00$1@dont-email.me> <ve56ko$2i956$1@dont-email.me> <ve5nr2$2khlq$1@dont-email.me> <212f549294ebc77a918569aea93bea2a4a20286a@i2pn2.org> <ve6j1u$2og2c$1@dont-email.me> <f9d1bf5073fbffaa8d19bc76ca53020d263e7e16@i2pn2.org> <vea0iq$3cg0k$1@dont-email.me> <veas8b$3k751$1@dont-email.me> <veb6d6$3lbkf$4@dont-email.me> <abdfd1ca7abecda8618d1f029c3ea9823fa3b077@i2pn2.org> <vebgka$3n9aq$1@dont-email.me> <9ba1b363605f6eafab3c7084de8052b5732c2ecb@i2pn2.org> <vebncp$3nqde$2@dont-email.me> <35d61c22e9b7c379f8b8c24a7ea03edb6cb5dff8@i2pn2.org> <vec45r$3pqr6$2@dont-email.me> <ae05d9ecf74719e986062279b104234dba57116d@i2pn2.org> <vec685$3qavn$2@dont-email.me> <f76b8956cc65a3ee09b414a54779e14c061c7cab@i2pn2.org> <vec7m4$3qme3$1@dont-email.me> <866b3eb92d549c57a3ccfdb705b323dbae3cb8e8@i2pn2.org> <vec955$3qme3$2@dont-email.me> <8fff8d1080e14393c058d7d23d219ecd55b29d22@i2pn2.org> <veeji6$8jnq$4@dont-email.me> <vefv1m$juj9$1@dont-email.me> <vegefv$lk27$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:39:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a163b5627f49dc5fbbd0e0b4effbff24";
	logging-data="1199796"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AyEXtC5ytVR3Een5MqFK8"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SbQoHrc/PHFGMoO5YTFyd1wMmsU=
Bytes: 2854

On 2024-10-13 12:29:51 +0000, olcott said:

> On 10/13/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-10-12 19:44:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>> 
>>> My point HERE AND NOW is that DDD emulated by every
>>> HHH that can possibly exist cannot possibly reach
>>> its own return instruction NO MATTER WHAT HHH DOES.
>> 
>> That does not mean anything as long as you don't define "every HHH"
> 
> void DDD()
> {
>    HHH(DDD);
>    return;
> }
> 
> The only requirement for HHH is that it is an emulator that
> emulates more than zero steps of DDD. HHH also must be able
> to emulate itself emulating DDD.
> 
>> so that one can determine whether a HHH that emulates whatever is
>> given as input except that instead of emulating its own code (it
>> it is called) as "return 1;" only is included in "every HHH".
>> 
> 
> This is out-of-scope. The scope is already 100% fully
> specified above.

A phrase that you just used cannot be out of scope.

-- 
Mikko