Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is INCorrectly rejected as non-halting V2

On 7/13/24 7:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 3:48 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:00:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 7:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/12/2024 5:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/12/24 10:56 AM, olcott wrote:

>

Thus each HHH element of the above infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs is
necessarily correct to reject its DDD as non-halting.
>

Nope.
NONE Of them CORRECTLY rejected itS DDD as non-halting and you are
shown to be ignorant of what you are talking about.
The HHH that did a partial emulation got the wrong answer, because
THEIR DDD will halt. and the HHH that doen't abort never get around
to rejecting its DDD as non-halting.

>
When no DDD of every HHH/DDD that can possibly exist halts then each
HHH that rejects its DDD as non-halting is necessarily correct.
*No double-talk and weasel words can overcome that*
>

Which is just your double-talk to try to redefine what halting means.
>

You try to cut my airtight proof up in little pieces and fail. Every
rebuttal that you make has disagreeing with the semantics of the x86
language as its basis.

Where does it disagree?!
>

 *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
 

But every DDD based on an HHH that stops its emulation and returns, will itself return when fully correctly emulated or run. It is only HHH INCORRECT because it is only PARTIAL emulation of that DDD that doesn't make it to the end.
PARTIAL emulations do not, by themselves, prove non-halting.
Your disagreeing with the actual details of the x86 language isn't allowed and shows how much of a pathologcial liar you are. You just can't understand the difference between Truth, which says what actually is, and Knownledge, which says what we know of what is, perhaps because you think you must be "God" and know everythibg that is, but you are NOT God.