Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:25:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v5n2n4$1d3t3$11@i2pn2.org>
References: <v4vrfg$2793f$1@dont-email.me> <v58m12$8mmo$1@dont-email.me>
	<v59797$brmn$1@dont-email.me> <v5b7nv$qvrb$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5btf3$v0vb$4@dont-email.me> <v5chru$10816$1@i2pn2.org>
	<v5cn01$149dc$1@dont-email.me> <v5ebvr$1hs89$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5efod$1ikpr$1@dont-email.me> <v5ejau$1iq57$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5eup8$1lar1$2@dont-email.me> <v5f1nm$1lp16$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5f246$1m2fl$1@dont-email.me> <v5f3fg$1lp16$2@dont-email.me>
	<v5f3j8$1m2fl$2@dont-email.me> <v5f54f$1lp16$3@dont-email.me>
	<v5f5sd$1mcif$1@dont-email.me> <v5ght9$21jrt$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5h3rd$24jbd$6@dont-email.me> <v5jbub$2m18t$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5k72o$2qsdr$4@dont-email.me> <v5lqul$386u3$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5mgd9$3cds2$1@dont-email.me> <v5mi5t$3cmj8$1@dont-email.me>
	<v5mj8m$3cibm$3@dont-email.me> <v5mobr$1d3t3$3@i2pn2.org>
	<v5mv5n$3f3fn$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 19:25:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1478563"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2953
Lines: 25

Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:24:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/28/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:01:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/28/2024 9:43 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 28.jun.2024 om 16:12 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/28/2024 3:06 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 27.jun.2024 om 19:21 schreef olcott:
>> 
>>>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by x86
>>>>>>> emulator H0 cannot possibly return.
>>> That is counter-factual. HHH(DDD) does correctly emulate the call from
>>> DDD to HHH(DDD) emulating itself emulating DDD.
You are really immune to contradictions, are you?

> HHH correctly emulates DDD including emulating itself emulating DDD and
> sees that this proves that DDD is stuck in recursive simulation thus
> aborts DDD and correctly returns 0 indicating it has rejected its input
> according to this criterion:
If it were able to correctly simulate itself it would see that its
recursive call also aborts, and could accept DDD as halting.

-- 
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:22:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: the logical 
impossibility of specifying a halt decider H that correctly reports the 
halt status of input D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever 
value that H reports.