Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/17/24 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N
to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly
reach its "return" instruction final halt state.
>

>
Except your DDD *CAN'T BE EMULTATED* by *ANY* HHH, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to emulate the Call HHH per the x86 language from your input, as the data isn't tnere.
>

>
In patent law this is called incorporation by reference.

>
And you need to PRECISELY specify what you are referencing.
>
>

I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings
of HHH. You already know that it is ridiculously stupid
that you suggest I should write them all down.

>
And thus admit that you are not talking sense, as each HHH that you think of creates a DIFFERENT program DDD
>

>
When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its
input then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It
is despicably dishonest of you to say that when N instructions
have been correctly emulated that no instructions have been
correctly emulating.

>
No, it is dishonest for you to lie.
>
I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no instructions correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct emulation that provides the answer for the semantic property of halting, which requires emulating to the final state or an unbounded number of steps.
>

>
void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
   return;
}
>
You are stupid liar. A smart liar would not be caught
in a lie with such a simple counter-example
THAT IS NEITHER EMULATED TO THE FINAL STATE NOR AN
UNBOUNDED NUMBER OF STEPS TO DETERMINE NON-HALT STATUS.
>

>
No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number of steps that makes it non-halting.

 Your rebuttals are stupid.
It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps.
That is a stupid thing to say.

So, you mean a UTM doesn't exist?
HHH can't emulate for an unbounded number of steps and give an answer, but a UTM can, since it isn't required to "give an answer" just to emulate the input.

 If you were not stupid you could say that it cannot possibly
reach its "return" instruction final halt state even in a
hypothetical number of steps.
 

Why would I say that, when it has been shown that it CAN reach its return instruction in a finite number of steps (for the complete and correct emulation of any DDD that calls an HHH that answers).
Your problem is somehow you mind thinks that only HHH can do an emulation, whkch is just a falsehood based on your mind thinking that truth is subjective.
Sorry, but you are just showing hwo STUPID you are and how little you understand what you are talking about.