Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?

Am Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:04:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/15/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 15.jul.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:

On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:

>
Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination of
simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.

>
Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in your
argument because you have misdefined what the input is.

It seems that you do not understand x86 language. The input is not a
string of bytes, but an address (00002163). This points to the
starting of the code of DDD. But a simulation needs a program, not a
function calling undefined other functions. Therefore, all functions
called by DDD (such as HHH) are included in the code to simulate.

>
*The input is the machine address of this finite*
*string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3*
You are talking about the behavior specified by that finite string.
When you say that a finite string *is not* a finite string you are
disagreeing with the law of identity.
Every rebuttal to my work disagrees with one tautology of another. It
is the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation that makes
it impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to halt.
Everyone disagrees with this entirely on the basis of the strawman
deception (damned lie) that some other DDD somewhere else has
different behavior.

>
*They disagree with the following*
In other words the fact that the directly executed DDD halts because
the HHH(DDD) that it calls has already aborted its simulation proves
these these two different instances of DDD are in different process
states.

BUT must have the same behavior.
 

The state of needing to abort the input changes after it has already
been aborted is the same as the state of being hungry changes after
you have had something to eat.
>

Can't. Since programs are unchanging, their properties can not change.
 

*WRONG* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code

There is no self-modification here.

DDD needing to be aborted changes to DDD not needing to be aborted as
all after being aborted.

You are talking about the runtime status. The static code of DDD will
not change to need to be aborted (or not) no matter how many times it
is run.

HHH1(DDD) does not need to abort its input because the HHH(DDD) that DDD
calls has already done this.

HHH1 is a different decider, right?

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.