Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt

On 7/12/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:

>

*DDD NEVER HALTS*

DDD ONLY calls HHH...

DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the
second line of DDD no matter what.

Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.

DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly
emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line
of DDD no matter what.

WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD
and HHH's emualtion of it.

We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1
to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86
emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly
exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of
00002174 and halt.

By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct
simulation is a FULL simulation

In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1
step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly
emulated.

When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie
to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you
know it.

But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH

I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!

Please don't insult ADD people.

 This does not say from 1 to 8 steps
when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated

Which, the way you are now describing it, only happens for the HHH that never aborts.
But, for you claims, you ALSO mean that 1 to ∞ steps also includes all the HHH that only do a finite number of steps and then abort.
Thus, you are trying to lie by the method of changing meaning.

 When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not
see these words I have to know why this is.
My aim is effective communication. I can't fix
the issue unless I know what the issue it.
 

No, when you try to use the same words with two different meanings you are just lying.

The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard
is a Liar. If is is Richards's ADD then repeating
the same sentence a dozen times seems to help.

No, Peter Olcott is just a liar by using double-speak, truying to have his words mean two different things at the same time.

 If Richard is being a liar then calling him a Liar
and telling him where this leads seems to help.

But since I am not lying, but just pointing out YOUR lies, you are just furthering you own lies.

 

You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.

 when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in
the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD
halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT HALT.

And by saying "NO DDD", that shows that you actually means the DDD that are simulated for just 1 step, for just 2 steps, for just 3 steps, and so on, which means you claim that you only meant the infinte number of steps is just a LIE. and that

 Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
https://jorynjenkins.com/hiding-the-pea/
shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD
pair that I was talking about for weeks and weeks.

No YOU are plying the shell game by changing the meaning of you words sometimes even mid-sentence.
WHICH HHH/DDD pair are you ACTUALLY talking about?
The one HHH with its DDD that you claim main calls and gets the "correct" answer (that is actually wrong). That ONE HHH being the one in your code repositiory.
The ine HHH with its DDD that never aborts, and thus never answers, and is the ONLY DDD that never returns.
One of the "infinite set" of HHH/DDD pairs that emulates the input for only a finite number of steps, and then claim that since then they haven't reached the final state, and that OTHER HHH (the one that doesn't abort) showed that ITS DDD (the one based on the OTHER HHH, that doesn't abort) would never halt, that it can claim that ITS DDD (which is different from the above, since it is paired to a different HHH, one that does abort) would act the same.
NONE of those HHH ever correctly answer about the DDD that they were given (that has been pair to THEM).
And all you arguments are just lies trying to play the shell game.
You will find out soon enough about the results of your life of lies.

 To counter this I started talking about every element
of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly
exist. That is what I am doing now.
  

The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating
input.
>