Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---

On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 3:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 2:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
Each element of this set corresponds to one element of the set
of positive integers indicating the number of  x86 instructions
of DDD that it emulates.

>

>
*This is the mistake that I corrected*

>
But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, since you haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly emulates ANY of the instructions of the program DDD after the call HHH, as everything says it jumps to something other than the correct x86 emulation of the program DDD that it was given.
>
But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.
>
>

But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.

>
<snip>

>
And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, then returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.
>

>
*Yes this is your ADD*
We have only been talking about DDD emulated by HHH.

>
If you mean the emulation of DDD by HHH, you need to say so.
>
DDD is one and only one thing, and that is the PROGRAM DDD. The fact that you want the DDD that is emulated by HHH doesn't change it.
>

>
It is a tautology that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

>
But that only applies for the HHH that DOES (Completely) correctly emulate its input DDD,

 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.

 *You are stuck in repeat mode with nothing new*
You either
(a) Deny tautologies
(b) Change the subject with the strawman deception
(c) Pure ad hominem with no reasoning at all.
 The problem is (a) your "tautolgy" only applies to the HHHs that you

don't then talk about, the ones that only emulate forever and never answer.
All other DDDs do halt.
(b) YOU logic is the strawman deception, because YOU are the one changing the meanig.
(c) You just don't understand what the ad hominem falacy is. I don't say you must be wrong because you are "stupid" or some other attribute, I logically show that you are wrong, with a logical arguement, and then point out how your refusal to understand that error demonstartes your mental and moral condition.
Now, the fact that you try to justify YOUR unsubstantiated position by trying to stick labels on me, but not try to actually defend your work, just shows that YOU are the one doing the fallacy, and that you are effectively admitting you have nothing to base you defense on, so are just trying to get away with a fallacy.
Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are, and that you are so stupid you can't even understand your error, which is the worse kind of stupid you can be.
The fact that you don't even try to base you logic on ANY actual accepted basis just proves you have nothing to work from.