Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Computable Functions --- finite string transformation rules
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:22:08 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <vuj88g$2uahf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsnchj$23nrb$2@dont-email.me> <vtm04f$2a90$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtm9q8$aut7$1@dont-email.me> <vtmah8$2a90$2@dont-email.me>
 <vtmgen$gs48$1@dont-email.me>
 <c2ad5086dba36124c070173c3e3252967df2fab9@i2pn2.org>
 <vu8g3q$v0qa$1@dont-email.me> <vu8lse$vn9b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vu8og4$13jl5$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d9ae3ac08bbbe4407fc3612441fc2032f949a3d@i2pn2.org>
 <vub168$3clpn$2@dont-email.me>
 <7ac75991b443ba53d52960ddb1932524dea8e03f@i2pn2.org>
 <40b048f71fe2ed2a8ef11d2d587c765c8fcbc977@i2pn2.org>
 <vucrgq$148pf$1@dont-email.me> <vudkt8$1ona3$2@dont-email.me>
 <vudp39$1rhdn$1@dont-email.me> <vudrgb$20gck$1@dont-email.me>
 <vue2fb$27hl3$1@dont-email.me> <vue464$28iho$2@dont-email.me>
 <vue57b$27hl3$3@dont-email.me> <vue8qm$2d7t8$1@dont-email.me>
 <cb382175aa6cc9a806dedc1d2bcfbd916dfaf1b5@i2pn2.org>
 <vuejgn$2md4c$3@dont-email.me>
 <ae8fce7ec0639d76c87bf1af0dfbc2a806053899@i2pn2.org>
 <vugucr$pke9$5@dont-email.me> <vui77f$217h6$2@dont-email.me>
 <vuj538$2lf64$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 20:22:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6a4185bda8a6e97ede9eb2148f614f66";
	logging-data="3090991"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183pKfYgNtE5NBbYqcfiqN/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LM8A13kAP6wD11GpJZ50FtPPdD4=
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vuj538$2lf64$9@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3610

Op 26.apr.2025 om 19:28 schreef olcott:
> On 4/26/2025 3:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 25.apr.2025 om 23:21 schreef olcott:
>>> On 4/25/2025 8:56 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:03:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematical induction proves that DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own final state in an infinite number of steps and it does
>>>>> this with one recursive emulation.
>>>>> There is a repeating pattern that every C programmer can see.
>>>
>>>> Like Fred wrote months ago, that has nothing to do with the 
>>>> contradictory
>>>> part of DD, 
>>>
>>> Sure it does. The contradictory part of DD has always
>>> been unreachable thus only a ruse.
>>>
>>>> only with it being simulated by the same simulator it calls.
>>>
>>> That <is> the Halting Problem counter-example input.
>>>
>>>> The program EE(){ HHH(EE); } also halts and cannot be simulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH cannot possibly do this without violating the rules of
>>> the x86 language.
>> HHH already violates the rules of the x86 language by prematurely 
>> aborting the halting program.
> 
> Everyone claims that HHH violates the rules
> of the x86 language yet no one can point out
> which rules are violated 


It has been pointed out many times. It is against the rules of the x86 
language to abort a halting function. We see that simulators that do not 
abort have no problem to reach the end of this halting program.
Why do you ignore this? Is that because you already know that HHH does 
violate the rules and you are only playing trollish head games.