Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH --- Correct Emulation Defined

On 3/20/25 9:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 8:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/20/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/20/2025 4:16 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-03-20 02:32:43 +0000, olcott said:
>

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]
>
When N steps of DDD are emulated by HHH according
to the semantics of the x86 language then these
N steps are emulated correctly.

>
That does not make much sense to define the correct emulation of DDD as
it should mean whatever "correct emulation" means when applied to DDD.
>
Althouth promised otherwise on the subject line the meaning of "DDD
correctly emulated by HHH" when N is not specified is not defined.
>

>
N in this context always means any element of the
set of natural numbers.

>
Then HHH isn't a specific program, and you are admitting that you "logic" is just based on FRAUD.
>

 We have been over this same thing too many times.

Right, and you still don't understand that you are required to follow the definitions of the system to be in the system.
You have ADMITTED that you aren't following the rules of the system, and thus every time you imply that you are, you have admitted you are lying.
Thus, every time you claim to be "solving" the Halting Problem, you have admitted you are just lying about that.

 

>
1,2,3...4,294,967,296 steps of DDD are correctly emulated
by HHH and DDD never reaches its "ret" instruction and
terminates normally.

>
DIFFERENT HHHs and thus DIFFERENT DDDs were emulated.
>

 The point remains the same without the additional details.
For every HHH at machine address 000015d2 when the above
listed machine code is emulated for any finite number of
steps according to the semantics of the x86 language the
above finite string of machine code never reaches its own
"ret" instruction and halts.

In other words, you claim it is ok to lie about the system you are working on.
The "additional details" are just the facts that you want to ignore.
Sorry, you are just showing that you whole world is built on FRAUD and LIES.
Your words mean nothing, as you have admitted that you change the meaning of them, yet haven't actually defined your meaning, as to do so makes it clear that you have been lying about working on the problems.

 

>

The term should be or include "partial emulation" when the intent is
that an emulation that could be continued is not is called "correct".
>

>
A finite number of N steps means a finite emulation.
>

>
Right, and every one of them creates an input DDD,

 Same finite string at the same machine address 00002172.

But of something that isn't a program, and thus a type error.
Your logic vacillates between the string being that short string of just the function, or actually being all of memory.

 

that when COMPLETELY emulated halts,

 You already said that DDD emulated by HHH never reaches
its own "ret" instruction in any finite number of steps,
WHY LIE ABOUT THIS NOW?

Because they are different FACTS.
An HHH that does just a partial emulation, doesn't do a CORRECT emulation, and thus any conclusion based on the assumption that it did one is invalid.
You don't seem to understand that real logic needs to work from truthful premises.

 

and thus should be called a halting input in any HONEST logic system.
>

WHY LIE ABOUT THIS NOW?

Yes, why do you lie?
Try to show where I lied under the actual definition of the system you are actually stuck in to be able to talk about the proofs (and not your system based on FRAUD).

 

Of course, in your FRAUD, you claim otherwise, but that just shows how bad your FRAUDULANT system is,