Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD --- anyone that says otherwise is a liar

On 11/21/24 10:34 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/21/2024 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/21/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/24 10:45 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/20/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/20/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote:

>
What I say is proven true by the meaning of its words
and you lie about this condemning yourself to actual Hell.

>
No, and you have shown you don't KNOW the meaning of the words, because you are using "Terms of Art" in an art that you are just ignorant of.
>

>
DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its "return"
instruction final halt state.

>
Which is an invalid criteria for a decider, and even invalid for saying "never"
>

>
THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING IT IS FALSE.

>
It surely isn't true, which is what you need it to be.
>

>
Of course it is true. I just don't get it why you want to
condemn yourself to Hell over this. Are you a fake Christian?

>
It isn't a valid condition to talk about for a decider, so just like the Liar's Paradox, it is untrue.
>

 DDD emulating by HHH DOES REACH ITS OWN FINAL STATE?
You really are a damned liar.
 

Not a valid question for a decider. It has been explained to you, but you seem too stupid to understand, so I will write slowly, so maybe it will make more sense to you.
A decider needs to try to compute a "function" of its input, that is some property that depends on the input, and JUST the input.
The problem is that "emulated by HHH" isn't just dependent on the input DDD, since as you have made clear, DDD isn't the "program" formed by DDD + the HHH that it calls, but just the code of DDD, and that behavior is NOT a function of just that input, because it depends on the behavior of the HHH that it calls.
And, that is part of the problem that HHH will have in emulating the input, as once it gets to the call HHH instruction, it can no longer emulate the INPUT, but it needs to process some "non-input" to figure out what happens.
Thus, your whole question is based on a category error as the input "DDD" can't be emulated beyond that call HHH instruction, so you end up with a nonsense criteria.
And that is because you can only ask about "reaching a final state" for things that are like a program, but a non-leaf "C function" is not like a program, but is dependent on the behavior of the HHH that DDD calls.
Since the Functional Mapping that HHH is supposed to be trying to compute is only a function of the *INPUT*, which doesn't indicate what HHH is, that functional mapping just can't exist.
So, your question is like asking about the height of the color green, just nonsense. The individual words may have meaning, but together they are just meaningless.