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

On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/13/24 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
This is double talk, because no HHH can possibly exist that simulates itself correctly.

>
Your definition of correct contradicts the semantics of
the x86 language making it wrong.
>

 No your ideas of the x86 language contradicts the actual sematic of the language.
 Where does it ever even imply that a partial emulation correctly predicts the behavior of the full program?
 

You switch from disagreeing with the x86 language to disagreeing
that all deciders must halt.
*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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer