Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- never reaches its halt state ---

On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
>
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>
There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>
Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>
>

 Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is what "Halting" is.
 

Finally something besides
the strawman deception,
disagreeing with a tautology, or
pure ad hominem.
You must first agree with everything that I said above
before we can get to this last and final point that it
not actually directly referenced above.
*Two key facts*
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
Until you agree to these two points I will continue to
point out that you are trying to disagree with a tautology.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer