Re: Two dozen people were simply right --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down

Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 13:45:47 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/1/2024 1:41 PM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 31 May 2024 18:57:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 5/31/2024 6:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 6:54 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 4:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/31/24 10:10 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/31/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 5/30/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
*If DD correctly simulated by HH can't possibly reach its own*
*final state then DD correctly simulated by HH is non-halting*

Which makes HH not terminate either, or incorrectly abort.
 

I will not respond to any of your replies while you continue to play
head games.

What do you mean? As a simulator, H can’t halt if its input D doesn’t.

*Changing the subject away from this is construed as a head game* DD
correctly simulated by pure function HH cannot possibly reach past its
own line 03 in any finite number of steps of correct simulation.

Then H is not pure.

In case you didn't know pure functions must halt because they must
return a value.

H is such a function. Where does it return?

*When we get as specific as the actual x86 machine code of* *DD then
all liars are exposed*

The machine code doesn't matter. Did you know that implementations can
be wrong, i.e. not meet their spec?

Which your machine code is buggy.

--
joes