Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Overview of proof that DDD specifies non-halting behavior
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:29:46 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <6e3518ffb2204f4f40919b81447fa156406880f5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v9abfu$2nabt$1@dont-email.me>
 <86c21e8a63450bf8b0c32f4f17ba0b503a914fe0@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d01i$39tbd$2@dont-email.me>
 <2c853efb65c3d8e2d4ba1c484f7002c74c68d895@i2pn2.org>
 <v9d1v8$3a9pe$1@dont-email.me>
 <e614d6b981fd5fa6eefc84894a14448d4663e3c7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9da2d$3bth4$1@dont-email.me>
 <64ddeeaa3a55a9e410de599bd8df53d3644ee5a3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9de0o$3cjse$1@dont-email.me> <v9dela$3cjse$2@dont-email.me>
 <b7c45ea22cb83908c31d909b67f4921156be52e3@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dgvl$3d1an$1@dont-email.me>
 <d289636b1d244acaf00108f46df093a9fd5aa27c@i2pn2.org>
 <v9dk2j$3dp9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <8318f5969aa3074e542747fe6ba2916d7f599bde@i2pn2.org>
 <TyKdnc3hCNvmUyf7nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <v9ekta$3necg$1@dont-email.me>
 <2f8c1b0943d03743fe9894937092bc2832e0a029@i2pn2.org>
 <v9fn50$3ta4u$2@dont-email.me>
 <d2309af812f88b94b2a64a422bf8240b54a0caae@i2pn2.org>
 <v9gghg$2cth$1@dont-email.me>
 <c6ecb410c80e2bd5516dfd0c4b239ff68393ebb7@i2pn2.org>
 <v9glm0$319k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 02:29:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2494910"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9glm0$319k$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3431
Lines: 35

On 8/13/24 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2024 4:34 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:43:28 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 8/13/2024 3:38 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:30:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> HHH correctly predicts that a correct and unlimited emulation of DDD
>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction final halt
>>>>> state.
>>>> If let run, the HHH called by DDD will abort and return.
>>>>
>>>>> H has never ever been required to do an unlimited emulation of a
>>>>> non-halting input. H has only ever been required to correctly predict
>>>>> what the behavior of a unlimited emulation would be.
>>>> Which it doesn't fulfill.
>> Can you actually reply to what I said?
>>
>>> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to the semantics
>>> of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
>> It's not about the individual steps, but their number. An incomplete or
>> aborted simulation is necessarily incorrect.
>>
> 
> *We can't move on to the next point until after you agree*
> A simulation of N instructions of DDD by HHH according to
> the semantics of the x86 language is necessarily correct.
> (1) Yes you agree
> (2) No you want to be stuck in an infinite loop until you agree
> 
> 

Nope, YOU are the one stuck in the infinite loop trying to prove a false 
statement.


Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity, and that you are too stupid 
to see your stupidity, which is the worse kind of stupid.