Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches its halt state ---

On 8/9/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
>
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>
There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>
Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>
>

>
Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is what "Halting" is.
>

>
Finally something besides
the strawman deception,
disagreeing with a tautology, or
pure ad hominem.
>
You must first agree with everything that I said above
before we can get to this last and final point that it
not actually directly referenced above.
>

>
Why do I need to agree to a LIE?
>
>

*Two key facts*
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>

>
WRONG, as proven.
>
The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does,

Now you have to agree with (a).
>

>
Why? since you statement was proven false, the accuracy of one of the terms doesn't matter.
>
I guess you don't understand how logic works, you have already shown that there is a lie in your proof, and therefore it is wrong.

 you changed the subject and found no lie.
 

Nope, since HHH is being asked about HALTING, and the definition of Halting is about the behavior of the PROGRAM, which in this case is DDD, and that behavior is defined as the EXECUTION of DDD, your PARTIAL simulations are a change of subject and a LIE.
The DDD (which HHH might correctly emulated0 HALTS if the HHH returns an answer.
Which means it mapps to HALTING.
PERIOD.
FACT.
Makes your statement just wrong, and shows you to be a LIAR.
The fact you don't know this makes you IGNORANT.
The fact that you can't learn it make you an IDIOT.
Sorry, those ARE the facts and the Truth even if you can't beleive it becasue you close your eyes to the truth because you need to beleive your own lie.