Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD

On 8/3/24 5:56 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 4:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/3/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 3:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/3/24 4:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/3/24 3:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/3/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 1:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/3/24 1:58 PM, olcott wrote:

Every DDD correctly emulated by any HHH for a finite or
infinite number of steps never reaches its own "return"
halt state.
>

>
Nope. And you statment is just a incoherent statement, as no partial simulaitoni for a finite number of steps is "correct".
>

>
In other words you are trying to get away with saying that
when N instructions are correctly emulated by HHH that none
of these correctly emulated instructions were correctly emulated.

>
No, I am saying that the result is NOT the final result that the x86 semantics says will happen, because the x86 semantics says it does not stop therme
>

>
The x86 semantics says that DDD correctly emulated by HHH
never reaches its own halt state of "return" in any finite
or infinite number of steps.
>
>

>
But only if HHH DOES correct emulation that never aborts.
>

>
The x86 semantics says that
*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*

...

*DDD correctly emulated by HHH*
never reaches its own halt state of
"return" in any finite
or infinite number of steps.

>
Yes, but only for an HHH that corectly emulates its input, which means it never aborts, and only for the DDD that calls THAT HHH.

>
*No you damned liar it does not mean that*

>
Why not? That *IS* the definition of correct emulation as defined by the concept of a UTM, which is the only definition of emulation that lets you get the actual full behavior of the program given.
>
>

It means that when 0 to infinity steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by its corresponding HHH not a
single DDD ever reaches its own halt state of "return".

>
Where do you get that from?
>
is it another lie that you took out of your ass?
>
Partial emulation is not correct emulation for the purposes of determining full behavior of a program.
>

 When every possible finite or infinite emulation of DDD
by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
never reaches the final state of DDD then each HHH can
correctly take a wild guess that DDD never halts.
 

Just says lying YOU.
You got any source for that other than yourself?
My guess is not.
The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a *DIFFERENT* input, so they don't prove anything together except that each one didn't go far enough. (or your input isn't a thing that actually has a halting property so you are starting with a type error).
This is your problem, you just make up lies and then you believe your own lies and can't face the actual truth of things.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that has a total reckless disregard for the truth because you have brainwashed yourself with your lies.
NOTHING You claim should be taken seriously, because you just don't understand what truth means.