Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 --- TYPO

On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/25/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>>>

No, I said a PARTIAL emulation is an incorrect basis.
>
You are just a proven liar that twists peoples words because you don't know what you are talking about.
>

>
It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation
of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there.

 HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that the complete emulation doesn't reach an end.
 

Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its
own "return" instruction?

IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just showing your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you can't show anything that proves it otherwise, because you just don't know anything about the fundamental facts of what you talk about.
 

I am not the one stupidly requiring the compete emulation
of a non-terminating input.

>

The problem is that any HHH that answers for the input built on it, must have been a decider that aborts when emulating that input, and thus only does a partial emulation.
>

>
It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation
of a non-terminating input. No twisted words there.

 HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that the complete emulation doesn't reach an end.
 IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just showing your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you can't show anything that proves it otherwise, because you just don't know anything about the fundamental facts of what you talk about.
 

Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its
own "return" instruction?

 

>

That is why HHH1 can get the right answer, because, not actually being an exact copy, it is able to emulate the input to the end, and see that it will halt.
>

>
It is an exact copy AND THE ONLY RELEVANT DIFFERENCE
IS THAT DDD CALLS HHH AND DOES NOT CALL HHH1. This
was even over Mike's head.
>
>

 Nope, It just proves that your HHH is not a "pure function" of its input, as it uses a "hidden input" and thus just fails to even be of the right form to be a decider.
 

We have not got to the point in the conversation where
we begin to talk about pure functions because you insist
on dodging a mandatory prerequisite point.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer