Re: III correctly emulated by EEE ---

On 3/26/25 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/26/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/25 11:32 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 8:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/25/25 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/25/2025 4:32 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 25 Mar 2025 07:00:57 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/25/2025 3:37 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:13:51 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 3/24/2025 8:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/24/25 10:14 AM, olcott wrote:

On 3/24/2025 6:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/23/25 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/23/2025 6:07 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/22/2025 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/22/25 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:

>

There exists no Natural Number N number of steps of III
correctly emulated by EEE where III reaches its own "ret"
instruction and terminates normally.

>

But there is an N after which III returns.

>

Right, and thus you must consider *ALL* of that memory as the
input, so if you change it, it is a different input.

You haven't yet noticed that all posts with this title [III
correctly emulated by EEE] are talking about a pure emulator that
emulates a finite number of instructions of III.

>

Then it is not pure.

>
>

DDD, the input, halts.

The DDD that halts IS NOT AN ACTUAL INPUT TO HHH.

>

Then what is? Another program with the same name that doesn't?
>

>
An entirely different instance that has different behavior.

>
YOu mean it has a different set of instructions?
>

>
It is easier to see this as DDD emulated by HHH where DDD
defines a pathological relationship with HHH versus DDD
emulated by HHH1 where there is no such pathological relationship.
>
DDD/HHH  Cannot possibly reach its final halt state.

>
So HHH just gives up before reaching the end,

>
Since you know that I know you are lying I
dare you to prove your point with actual correct
reasoning so that you can make a fool of yourself.
>

>
No, I know that you are so stupid you think i am lying when you are.
>
My point is proven by just running HHH, and seeing that it gives up.
>

 You already admitted that DDD emulated by HHH never reaches
its final state an halts. Do you not understand that this
behavior can be detected in a finite number of steps.

But it isn't non-halting.
Non-Halting is that the machine won't reach its final staste even if an unbounded number of steps are emulated. Since HHH doesn't do that, it isn't showing non-halting.
UTM(DDD) shows that the DDD that calls the HHH that THINKS (incorrectly) that it has detected non-halting behavior will, in fact, reach a final state, and thus be halting, and thus HHH is wrong if though of as an actual Halting Decider.
Maybe you have solved the POOP problem, if you can ever properly define it, which I am not so sure about.

 

We can then run the version where main calls DDD, and we see that by the DEFINITIONS of the problem, the input halts, and thus HHH was wrong.
>
Sorry, you are just proving to the world that you are so stupid you can't see your stupidity. A perfect example of Dunning-Kruger.