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 ---
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:36:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me>
 <b84374e766c199e1ba38ef1dc3bc8f6ab2c39dfc@i2pn2.org>
 <v91i97$3n4m0$1@dont-email.me> <v91unh$3rbor$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gja$p1$3@dont-email.me> <v94m0l$ljf4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v95ae9$p5rb$1@dont-email.me> <v978dv$h1ib$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97j0q$ilah$2@dont-email.me>
 <ccc5dafb53acf66239baac0183a6291687794963@i2pn2.org>
 <v97l3j$kof0$2@dont-email.me> <v97pgq$l4f4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v97qf0$lise$2@dont-email.me> <v97rq3$l4f4$4@dont-email.me>
 <v97t7g$m8l6$1@dont-email.me>
 <332fdac834dd53dbe6a8650e170f08fac33ca2cf@i2pn2.org>
 <v988fu$r9k6$1@dont-email.me>
 <614b136972063ab2c9d5e3d91e4289858ef24f55@i2pn2.org>
 <v98ag9$rj63$1@dont-email.me>
 <9721b1bcc4a6849dabc5d7956754292823381840@i2pn2.org>
 <v98e8s$sddi$2@dont-email.me>
 <f7a568982428ce74da1635a0537c47580063d45b@i2pn2.org>
 <v98g9c$sres$1@dont-email.me>
 <5586bed1ae799730f4f5cda602007aa0a67a5b71@i2pn2.org>
 <v98hpa$t1hv$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:36:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec0d1ee71ceed677a7540299f25b1a73";
	logging-data="960860"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qCSHBfbjCjBjbsYC6YFOw"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IEEuzYW7p6/tTcTR9YjviJFk2Bg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 4827

On 8/10/2024 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/24 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2024 3:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/10/24 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/10/2024 2:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>>>>>    return;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
>>>>>>>>>> Each element of this set corresponds to one element of the set
>>>>>>>>>> of positive integers indicating the number of  x86 instructions
>>>>>>>>>> of DDD that it emulates.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is the mistake that I corrected*
>>>>>
>>>>> But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, 
>>>>> since you haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly 
>>>>> emulates ANY of the instructions of the program DDD after the call 
>>>>> HHH, as everything says it jumps to something other than the 
>>>>> correct x86 emulation of the program DDD that it was given.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and 
>>>>>>>>> then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, 
>>>>> then returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Yes this is your ADD*
>>>> We have only been talking about DDD emulated by HHH.
>>>
>>> If you mean the emulation of DDD by HHH, you need to say so.
>>>
>>> DDD is one and only one thing, and that is the PROGRAM DDD. The fact 
>>> that you want the DDD that is emulated by HHH doesn't change it.
>>>
>>
>> It is a tautology that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH
>> cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.
> 
> But that only applies for the HHH that DOES (Completely) correctly 
> emulate its input DDD, 

As I have countlessly proven it only requires enough correctly
emulated steps to correctly infer that the input would never
reach is "return" instruction halt state.

Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.

*You are stuck in repeat mode with nothing new*
You either
(a) Deny tautologies
(b) Change the subject with the strawman deception
(c) Pure ad hominem with no reasoning at all.


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