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

On 12/2/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/2/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/2/24 10:13 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/2/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/2/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:57:23 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 11:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/28/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/28/2024 9:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/28/24 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:

>

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

>
But that DDD CAN'T be emulated more than 4 instructions by ANY pure
function, as you can't emulate past the call HHH instruction.
>

You just aren't paying any attention at all or are woefully inaccurate
in your word choice. HHH1 does emulate all of DDD.
HHH1 <is> a pure function.

Strawman. We are talking about HHH.
>

>
HHH1 has identical source-code to HHH the only difference
is that DDD does not call HHH at all, thus does not call
HHH in recursive emulation.
>
*You said*
    DDD CAN'T be emulated more than 4 instructions by
    ANY pure function...
>
Sure it can! It can be emulated by pure function HHH1
>
It HHH1 an element of the set of pure functions?
YES IT IS THUS YOU ARE WRONG !!!
>
>

>
>
Nope, becuase if HHH1 looks at the machine code of HHH, which wasn't part of its input, it isn.t a pure function, BY DEFINITION.
>

>
How the Hell do you think that you can get away with
saying that HHH is not part of the input to HHH1?
>

>
Because you have defined that the input is JUST the x86 machine code of DDD.
>

 I never said anything like that Dumbledore. If I ever
said anything like that then I would have never said
that HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.

So, you are just proving that you are i9n your basic nature a LIAR.
I guess you are just wanting to conferm you one way ticket to Gehanna.
I can show you that you have, but will wait to give you a chance to repent of your lies before presenting the condemnation to you.

 *DDD emulated by HHH NEVER HALTS* (wit of a nit).
 >

Better signature for you, you NITWIT.
Of course you remember that if HHH *IS* part of the input, then that HHH has been fully specified by the input (the input can't just say "use whatever HHH you find, it needs to actually specify to actual steps that HHH will do) and thus when you hypothosize some other HHH looking at THIS input, that input doesn't change and thus the HHH that DDD calls doesn't change, so your other HHH's need to be put elsewhere, as you can't have two different pieces of code using the exact same memory addresses so they become like your HHH1, and show that DDD emulated by those other HHH's will halt, therefore HHH is wrong in making the claim that no HHH can ever emulate this input to a final state.
All you are doing is proving your utter ignorance, and that you are