Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT --- Trolls

Am Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:28:40 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/22/2025 7:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:44:06 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 4/15/2025 2:03 PM, dbush wrote:

On 4/15/2025 2:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/15/2025 11:05 AM, dbush wrote:

On 4/15/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

 

*corresponding output to the input*
Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing else besides the
freaking input. Must compute whatever mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM
THIS INPUT.

So the algorithm HHH that you've implemented computes *some*
computable function, but it does not compute the halting function
as it is not computable.

*corresponding output to the input*

That doesn't refute anything I said.

You continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y) {return x +
y; }
returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly understand how these
things fundamentally work.
It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on the direct execution
of DD when you are not telling it one damn thing about this direct
execution.

What else is it missing that the processor uses to execute it?

The processor gets the exact same information, and HHH has access to an
emulator.

libx86emu <is> a correct x86 processor and does emulate its inputs
correctly.

No, it aborts instead of halting.

The key thing here is that everyone has consistently flat out lied about
the mapping from the above machine code to the behavior of DD emulated
by HHH including HHH emulating itself emulating DD. They do this as a
trollish head game.

Don't project. If HHH does not map DD to its direct execution, it is
not a halt decider.

Everyone here stupidly assumes that the output must be derived from
something THAT THE INPUT DOES NOT SAY.

No, the program DD halts when directly executed, which is what we are
interested in.

HHH emulates DD including emulating itself emulating DD according the
the semantics of the x86 language. Disagreeing with the semantics of the
x86 language is as stupid as disagreeing with arithmetic.

Despite multiple requests, you have never pointed to a disagreement with
x86 semantics.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.