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

On 12/4/24 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/4/2024 1:22 PM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 04 Dec 2024 13:14:20 -0600 schrieb olcott:

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.

For that it seems relevant what HHH does. Ok, it simulates some number
of steps of its input, potentially forever?
>

*We must go though my proof ONE-STEP-AT-A-TIME*

Only you must. Why? Just give me the full thing, if you have it.
>

 It is impossibly too difficult to understand unless we
achieve mutual agreement on each point before moving on
to the next point.
 

No, it is too easy to spot your lies when you have to put everything out at once.
I guess you have decide that you will never be able to write your paper, as that will need to be presented all at once, and if you can't logically present your arguement that way, you are just admitting it is not actually correct and presentable.