Re: Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

On 8/2/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

>
Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that never aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the HHH that you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
>

>
That is probably the least stupid answer here recently.
Mikko, Joes, and Fred would probably not do as well. Let's
see if the others can catch up to at least this much.
>
Mike is usually pretty good at his analysis until recently.
He may not understand this key aspect as well as you do.
>
>

>
So you accept that the only DDD that is non-halting is the DDD that calls the HHH that does a fully correct emulation of its input, and thus doesn't abort it?
>

 I never said that. The fact the we agree on one key point may
be helpful to get others to agree to this one key point.
 You did not even get this one key point exactly correctly in
that you answered a different question than the exact question
that I actually asked. You did seem to get it better than Joes,
Fred or Mikko.
 

Then you can't use that point, as obviously we disagree on a key definition in it.
Fundamentally, your problem is that you don't understand that words have specific meanings, that can depend on the context, and you don't get to change them.
Since it is clear that you don't understand what most of the key terms mean, your statments just become falsehoods.
For instance, you don't understand that as an input, DDD *MUST* contain the code of HHH as part of it, and thus, which HHH is there matters.