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

On 10/27/24 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/27/2024 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 11:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 8:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 10/26/2024 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:

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?
>

>
The problem is that your HHH doesn't do that,

>
Of course it doesn't do that. It is ridiculously stupid for
an emulating termination analyzer to emulate a non-terminating
input forever.
>

>
Right, but it needs to answer about what the unaborted emulation would do,

>
Exactly !!!
>

>
And the unaborted emulation HALTS, since DDD calls the HHH that does abort and return,
>
You keep on trying to lie by playing a shell game and changing the imput to the system, which includes the code of the HHH that DDD calls.
>
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupdity.

>
No you are merely contradicting yourself, thus an objective
measure of your error opposed to a subjective opinion of me.

>
WHERE did I contradict myself?
>
The CORRECT answer is based on the actual beahvior of the direct exectution of the program. That is the definition.
>
It is a provable fact, that the COMPLETE (and correct) emulation of the input will give the same answer as that, so is an proper equivalent for that definition.
>

>
To the best of my knowledge you recently admitted that DDD
emulated by HHH never reaches its return instruction whether
HHH aborts its emulation or not.
>

>
No,  I admitted that the EMULATION OF DDD by HHH will never reach the return instruction, to resolve tbe equivocation of the statement.

 *There is no equivocation in this*

Them which of the ts meanings do you mean? The fact that you don't even try to answer shows the equivocation is intentional.
1) Do you mean the behavior of the "Program DDD", which HHH happens to be emulating, which is the full behavior of said program, which will happen to reach that final return statement since the HHH that it calls is the HHH that answered, and thus makes DDD reach that point, or
2) Do you mean the behavior of the emulation of DDD by HHH, which is aborted part way, and thus doesn't show if the "PROGRAM DDD" will reach a final state.
Remember, the DEFINITION of the Halting Problem (that you are not allowed to change, as it is a stipulation of the problem) is about the behavior of THE PROGRAM that the input describes.
Remember too, that the definition of a PROGRAM, includes ALL the code used by it, so the PROGRAM DDD, includes the code for HHH, and from your problem statement, that is the HHH that answers, so when you hypothosis about other actions that HHH might have done, the HHH that DDD calls can't be changed.,

DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language
for the zero through infinity emulated states will never reach the
return instruction of DDD.
 

>
Since for the HHH that returns an answer, that emulation is the fact above, incomplete,

 Why do you utterly insist on requiring the logically impossible?

Because that *IS* the requirement.
The fact that it is logically impossibe for H to get the right answer for D just shows that this particular mapping (Halting) is uncomputabe.
Nothing wrong with answers being uncomputable.

There is no such thing as the complete emulation of a non-terminating input. You know this and still require it. Trollish head games may
count as lies of Revelations 21:8.

Yes, there is, it is just non-terminating also, which fits the definition of "correct emulation" in that it produces the exact same results as the original machine, so if that doesn't halt, neither does the correct emulation of it.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't undertstand what you are trying to talk about.

 

that means that said HHH hasn't shown that the program DDD will not reach its return instruction, only established a lower bound for how many steps it will take to do so.
>
You keep on trying to use that equivocation, which shows that either you are so stupid you don't understand the simple error in English, or you are just so ignorant of the rules that you ignore them, or you are just guilty of being a blantant liar, or multiple of the above.