Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD

On 12/4/24 2:14 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 9:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 03 Dec 2024 17:08:34 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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

Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:35:16 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 11:32 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:07:16 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 10:51 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:47:10 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 10:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 28 Nov 2024 10:16:15 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/28/2024 4:04 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 27 Nov 2024 19:15:41 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 11/27/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/27/24 8:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 11/27/2024 6:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

>

If HHH halts at all, it needs to return that HHH halts.

DDD emulated by any HHH cannot possibly halt.
You can fail to understand that, you can lie about that, it
remains immutably a verified fact none-the-less.

Yes, HHH can't simulate itself.

The code proves that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD why lie?

The code proves that HHH aborts.

You said:
   >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That is WRONG !!!
HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.

We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.

Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you try to change
the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
  >>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves THAT IT CAN DO THIS.

I'm not changing the subject. HHH is a decider, right?
>

 We have not begun to get to that point of the
conversation yet. We have only been talking
about the emulation of DDD by HHH for three months.

But you aren't going to be allowed to change the behavior of the HHH that you talk about.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

Which doesn't include "HHH, so your HHH to emulate the "input" must be impure, and thus not meet your requirements.

 *We must go though my proof ONE-STEP-AT-A-TIME*
 DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach it "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
 

But the DDD you show can *NOT* be emulated more than 4 instructions by a pure function, so your claim is just bogus.
You are just proving that you don't undetstand what you are talking about, show9ing you are nothing but a damned pathological liar.