Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

Op 09.mrt.2025 om 00:23 schreef olcott:

On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
reach their own final state and terminate normally.

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification that is the halting function:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>
And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification

>
*THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>
It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
report on behavior other than the above behavior.
>

>
It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or termination analyzer as per the definition.

 In other words you believe that HHH should just ignore the
fact that DD makes a call that prevents DD from ever reaching
its own final state? *THAT IS FREAKING MORONIC*
 

Indeed. It is also stupid to try to draw a square circle.
Why are you trying to create something that has been proven to be non-existent?