Path: ...!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 16:37:44 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v98mj9$tunr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8jh7m$30k55$1@dont-email.me> <v95ae9$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$1@dont-email.me>
 <2fee2a47a11178b8ec9089878a51aa7ccb410fc2@i2pn2.org>
 <v98j19$taas$1@dont-email.me>
 <e594b5b47303846026e79ab95d1ba6b528ba6267@i2pn2.org>
 <v98leq$tna8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 23:37:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec0d1ee71ceed677a7540299f25b1a73";
	logging-data="981755"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Mj5znDb2Ahop9GbwtHNNR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lNbW1TLrf1yNtahlap8v8bVCsIM=
In-Reply-To: <f2715e52691fec808c2ae5953e65fb42f4e19fa9@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3528

On 8/10/2024 4:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides to abort and 
>>> return, then the DDD that it is emulating WILL return, just after HHH 
>>> has stopped its emulation.
>>>
>>> You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the PARTIAL emulation that 
>>> HHH does, because you lie about your false "tautology".
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
>>>> say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
>>>
>>> Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make you a liar.
>>>
>>> In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are talking about do 
>>> the "correct emulation" you base you claim on.
>>>
>>> That is just a deception like the devil uses, has just a hint of 
>>> truth, but the core is a lie.
>>>
>>
>> What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
>> semantics of the x86 language.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) returns a value.

HHH is called by main() there is no directly executed DDD()
any where in the whole computation.

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