Re: Flat out dishonest or totally ignorant?

On 7/2/2024 10:50 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 02 Jul 2024 14:46:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/2/2024 2:17 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 21:00 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 1:42 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 14:22 schreef olcott:

On 7/2/2024 3:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 02.jul.2024 om 03:25 schreef olcott:

 

Every C programmer that knows what an x86 emulator is knows that
when HHH emulates the machine language of Infinite_Loop,
Infinite_Recursion, and DDD that it must abort these emulations so
that itself can terminate normally.

>
Whether or not it *must* abort is not very relevant.

>
This <is> the problem that I am willing to discuss.
I am unwilling to discuss any other problem.
This does meet the Sipser approved criteria.

 

Repeating the same thing that has already been proved to be
irrelevant does not bring the discussion any further.
Sipser is not relevant, because that is about a correct simulation.
Your simulation is not correct.
>

If you disagree with this you are either dishonest or clueless I no
longer care which one.

 

DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted.

>
HHH repeats the process twice and aborts too soon.

>
You are freaking thinking too damn narrow minded.
DDD is correctly emulated by any HHH that can exist which calls this
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted (which may be
never).

Whatever HHH does, it does not run forever but aborts.
 

HHH halts on input DDD.
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly halt.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer