Re: DDD specifies recursive emulation to HHH and halting to HHH1 --- STA

On 4/3/25 6:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/3/2025 5:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/3/25 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 9:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/2/25 10:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/2/2025 8:52 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:37:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/1/2025 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 4/1/25 7:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/1/2025 5:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 3/31/25 10:19 PM, olcott wrote:

>

But DDD doesn't prevent its own terminatation, as it calls an HHH
that WILL abort its emulation and return and answer.
>

You know that DDD stopping running and DDD reaching its final halt
state are not the same thing you damned liar.
>

Right, the DDD who's simulation is stopped hasn't shown non-halting
behavior, just not-yet-halted.
>

You already admitted that you are lying about this.
DDD emulated by HHH for an infinite number of steps never reaches its
final halt state.

*finite
>

HHH sees this in one recursive emulation of DDD.
>
*Simulating termination analyzer Principle*
It is always correct for any simulating termination analyzer to stop
simulating and reject any input that would otherwise prevent its own
termination. The only rebuttal to this is rejecting the notion that
deciders must always halt.

It must also return the right value.
>

>
By process of elimination and by the above criteria
we can determine that not stopping the emulation
causes HHH to never halt. This only leaves stopping
the emulation that semantically entails that the
input must be rejected.
>

>
No, because HHH must do what HHH does.
>

>
So I am tong because you claim that HHH
does not do what it does?
>

>
The problem is that your logic claims that HHH doesn't do what it does, which is just emulate its inputpartially and them return.
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 Do you really think that anyone knowing the C
programming language is too stupid to see that
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly return?
 

WHich is irrelevent, as HHH to be a decider must abort and return some answer, and thus DDD is halting.
Your problem is you are believing your own lies that HHH's partial emulation proves that its input isn't halting, even when another emulatpr os able to completly emulate it to the end.
All you are proving is that you are just a bad liar that hold tightly to their lies even when exposed, and just claims that world is wrong, not them.
You are also proving you are too stupid to be able to learn the real defintions of the words you use, so you just continue to lie by using your wrong definitions.
Sorry, you are just proving you are nothing but a stupid and ignorant pathologically lying idiot.