Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state?

On 8/5/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 9:31 PM, wij wrote:

On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 21:25 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 8:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/5/24 9:49 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/5/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-08-04 18:59:03 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 8/4/2024 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 1:22 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.aug.2024 om 18:35 schreef olcott:

  >>>> ∞ instructions of DDD correctly emulated by HHH[∞] never

reach their own "return" instruction final state.
>
So you are saying that the infinite one does?
>

>
Dreaming again of HHH that does not abort? Dreams are no
substitute for facts.
The HHH that aborts and halts, halts. A tautology.

>
void DDD()
{
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
}
>
That is the right answer to the wrong question.
I am asking whether or not DDD emulated by HHH
reaches its "return" instruction.

>
But the "DDD emulated by HHH" is the program DDD above,

>
When I say DDD emulated by HHH I mean at any level of
emulation and not and direct execution.

>
If you mean anything other than what the words mean you wihout
a definition in the beginning of the same message then it is
not reasonable to expect anyone to understand what you mean.
Instead people may think that you mean what you say or that
you don't know what you are saying.
>

>
If you don't understand what the word "emulate" means look it up.
>
DDD (above) cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction halt
state when its machine code is correctly emulated by HHH.
>

>
Only because an HHH that does so never returns to anybody.
>

>
Do you really not understand that recursive emulation <is>
isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>

>
Not when the emulation is conditional.
>

>
Infinite_Recursion() meets the exact same condition that DDD
emulated by HHH makes and you know this. Since you are so
persistently trying to get away contradicting the semantics
of the x86 language the time is coming where there is zero
doubt that this is an honest mistake.
>
Ben does correctly understand that the first half of the Sipser
approved criteria is met. Even Mike finally admitted this.
>
Those that disagree either are totally lacking in even basic
knowledge of C or are liars.
>

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
    Infinite_Recursion();
    return;
}
>
Does infinite recursion ever reach its own "return"
instruction halt state?
>

>

>
All do not matter. Since you modified the HP problem, you know you are not solving
the halting problem. It is POO Problem.
>

 It may seem that way if you make sure to not pay enough attention.
 

But since you never pay attenetion to the rules, that just describes yourself.
You have admitted that you past two decades are based on a LIAR about working on the actual Halting Problem, as you admitted that you changed the definition of the probllem, and thus it is a different problem.
Sorry, you just outfoxed yourself and proved your work to be worthless.