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

On 10/26/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 10:51 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 9:10 AM, joes wrote:

Am Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:47:11 -0500 schrieb olcott:

Here is the one key point:
>
DDD emulated by HHH must emulate itself emulating DDD.
DDD emulated by HHH1 must NOT emulate itself emulating DDD.
DDD emulated by HHH1 has the same behavior as executed DDD.
>
>

>
And since HHH can not "correctly" (as in completely) emulate HHH

 You acknowledge that it is ridiculously stupid to require an
emulating termination analyzer to infinitely emulate a
non-terminating input and then you make this ridiculously
stupid requirement again.
 Do you have a short-circuit in your brain?
 

I never said that, that is just your stupidity misinterpreting people.
The requirement is that the decider must give the right answer.
THe right answer is based on the direct exectution of the machine the input describes, which is something totally not directly observable.
There is an equivalent, that it can use, and that is to look at the behavior of the unaborted emulation of the input. This is at least in the domain of what it can possible observe.
It doesn't need to DO the full emulation, but must be able to correctly predict what that would do if it was done.
What *IS* rediculousely stupid is to expect that a wrong answer could be right.
It is also ridiculously stupid to think that you have the authority to change the requirement on the problem, and still be able to claim you are working on the problem.
That just proves that you are nothing but a LIAR.