Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT

Liste des GroupesRevenir à theory 
Sujet : Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theory comp.ai.philosophy sci.logic
Date : 23. Jun 2025, 03:08:49
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <7de28bd72749e9a64235cd8851af1d10a7391a36@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 6/22/25 5:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2025 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/22/25 11:07 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/22/2025 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/25 5:28 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/21/2025 3:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/21/25 11:38 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2025 7:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/20/25 1:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/20/2025 10:27 AM, joes wrote:
Am Fri, 20 Jun 2025 09:53:41 -0500 schrieb olcott:
On 6/20/2025 4:42 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 19.jun.2025 om 17:23 schreef olcott:
On 6/19/2025 3:55 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 18.jun.2025 om 17:41 schreef olcott:
On 6/18/2025 4:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
Op 17.jun.2025 om 16:36 schreef olcott:
>
Indeed, HHH fails to reach the end of the simulation, even though
the end is only one cycle further from the point where it gave up
the simulation.
>
That is counter-factual and over-your-head.
It was an agreement.
>
No evidence presented for this claim. Dreaming again?
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.
>
Proving that you do not understand what unreachable code is.
>
Even a beginner understands that when HHH has code to abort and halt,
the simulated HHH runs one cycle behind the simulating HHH, so that
when the simulating HHH aborts, the simulated HHH is only one cycle
away from the same point.
Yes this is factual.
Lol, that was the same paragraph.
>
Every simulated HHH remains one cycle behind its simulator no matter how
deep the recursive simulations go. This means that the outermost
directly executed HHH reaches its abort criteria first.
Yes, no simulator can proceed past a call to itself.
>
>
That is counter-factual and it you knew c well
enough you could verify that is counter-factual.
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>
Which shows that HHH never correctly simulates its input, as it always will abort its simulation, and a partial simulation is never a correct simulation by the term-of-art definition.
>
>
HHH emulates N x86 machine language instructions of
DDD according to the semantics of the x86 language,
thus necessarily emulates these N instructions correctly.
This also requires HHH to emulate itself emulating DDD
at least once.
>
Which isn't the definition of "Correct Emulation",
*It is the definition of a correct emulation of N instructions*
That you believe that a correct emulation is a complete emulation
of a non terminating input is self-contradictory. Even my close
friend with a 73 IQ knows that contradiction proves falsity.
>
>
>
Which isn't the correct simulation of the input.
>
>
A correct simulation of N instructions is
A correct simulation of N instructions
in the same way that 1 == 1.
>
ChatGPT itself recognizes the repeating pattern
shown in N steps of DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
I never have been able to understand how refusing
to acknowledge this was anything other than dishonesty.
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Anyone that knows what infinite recursion is should
be able to immediately see that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement
final halt state.
>
But it is *NOT* a correct simulation of ALL,
Richard is such a liar that he disagrees that when HHH
correctly simulates N instructions of DDD this does not
mean that N instructions of DDD were correctly simulated.
Really, Where did I say that LIAR!

 No one here is stupid enough to reject the law of identity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
thus Richard must be lying.
 
So, you think Partial == Complete?
A "Correct Simulation" without a modifier must be completely correct to the end, which your PARTIAL simulation is not.
As I have said, your logic says that if you get off a 1 mile road after walking 50 feet, your logic says you can claim the road is without end since you didn't reach the end of it.
You can then go to a 2 mile road, and walk 100 feet, a 3 mile road and walk 150 feet, and so on.
None of the roads that you only walked part, did you reach the end, so all of them must be unending.
You problem is that you "conviently" forget that each DDD Input, either doesn't contain the HHH that it uses, at which point the simulation of the input can't be performed past the call instruction, as the input doesn't have that data, or it contains the code of the HHH that it uses, and every one is different.,
Your "logic" says that even though they include diffferent HHHs, they are the same as the "C function" is the same, but you can't simulate just the C function as the input.
Sorry, you are just proving that you logic is based on stupid deceptions.
It is hard to believe that you really are just that ignorant, as you should have learned something from all the comments, so it seems you must have some form of mental pathology that either make you just not understand the nature of truth, or make you unable to learn this material.
It is really starting to sound lie you may have a pathological personality that it might be worth pointing out the the athorities.
After all, you ARE On record as claiming to be God, and thus not bound to normal human laws.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
15 Jun 25 * HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT117olcott
16 Jun 25 +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT41Richard Damon
16 Jun 25 i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT40olcott
16 Jun 25 i +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 25 i i`- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1olcott
16 Jun 25 i +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT13Richard Damon
16 Jun 25 i i+* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT10olcott
17 Jun 25 i ii`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT9Richard Damon
17 Jun 25 i ii +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3olcott
17 Jun 25 i ii i+- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 25 i ii i`- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
17 Jun 25 i ii `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT5olcott
17 Jun 25 i ii  +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 25 i ii  i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
18 Jun 25 i ii  i `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 25 i ii  `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
16 Jun 25 i i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT !!!2olcott
17 Jun 25 i i `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT !!!1Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 25 i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT24Mikko
16 Jun 25 i  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT23olcott
17 Jun 25 i   +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT18Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 25 i   i+* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT16olcott
18 Jun 25 i   ii+* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT14Richard Damon
18 Jun 25 i   iii`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT13olcott
19 Jun 25 i   iii +- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
19 Jun 25 i   iii `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT11Mikko
19 Jun 25 i   iii  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT10olcott
20 Jun 25 i   iii   +- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
20 Jun 25 i   iii   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT8Mikko
20 Jun 25 i   iii    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT7olcott
21 Jun 25 i   iii     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT6Mikko
21 Jun 25 i   iii      `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT5olcott
21 Jun 25 i   iii       +- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
22 Jun 25 i   iii       `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Mikko
22 Jun 25 i   iii        `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
23 Jun 25 i   iii         `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Mikko
18 Jun 25 i   ii`- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 25 i   i`- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 25 i   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT4Mikko
17 Jun 25 i    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3olcott
18 Jun 25 i     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2Mikko
18 Jun 25 i      `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1olcott
16 Jun 25 +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2Mikko
16 Jun 25 i`- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1olcott
16 Jun 25 `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT73Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 25  +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT4olcott
17 Jun 25  i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 25  i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
18 Jun 25  i  `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
16 Jun 25  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT68olcott
17 Jun 25   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT67Fred. Zwarts
17 Jun 25    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT66olcott
18 Jun 25     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT65Fred. Zwarts
18 Jun 25      `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT64olcott
19 Jun 25       `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT63Fred. Zwarts
19 Jun 25        `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT62olcott
20 Jun 25         `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT61Fred. Zwarts
20 Jun 25          `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT60olcott
20 Jun 25           +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT11joes
20 Jun 25           i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT10olcott
21 Jun 25           i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT9Richard Damon
21 Jun 25           i  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT8olcott
21 Jun 25           i   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT7Richard Damon
21 Jun 25           i    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT6olcott
22 Jun 25           i     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT5Richard Damon
22 Jun 25           i      `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT4olcott
22 Jun 25           i       `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT3Richard Damon
22 Jun 25           i        `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
23 Jun 25           i         `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- PROOF THAT I AM CORRECT1Richard Damon
22 Jun 25           `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT48Fred. Zwarts
22 Jun 25            `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT47olcott
23 Jun 25             `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT46Fred. Zwarts
23 Jun 25              +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT40olcott
24 Jun 25              i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT39Fred. Zwarts
24 Jun 25              i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT38olcott
25 Jun 25              i  +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT18Mikko
25 Jun 25              i  i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT17olcott
26 Jun 25              i  i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT16Mikko
27 Jun05:21              i  i  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT15olcott
27 Jun15:26              i  i   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT14olcott
28 Jun09:47              i  i    +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT7Fred. Zwarts
29 Jun10:01              i  i    i+* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Mikko
29 Jun15:28              i  i    ii`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
30 Jun10:32              i  i    ii `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Mikko
29 Jun11:43              i  i    i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Fred. Zwarts
29 Jun14:49              i  i    i `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
30 Jun08:43              i  i    i  `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
28 Jun12:56              i  i    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT6Mikko
28 Jun14:51              i  i     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT5olcott
29 Jun10:10              i  i      `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT4Mikko
29 Jun15:34              i  i       `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3olcott
30 Jun08:42              i  i        +- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Fred. Zwarts
30 Jun10:40              i  i        `- Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT1Mikko
25 Jun 25              i  `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT19Fred. Zwarts
25 Jun 25              i   `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT18olcott
26 Jun 25              i    `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT17Fred. Zwarts
28 Jun00:30              i     `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT16olcott
28 Jun09:50              i      `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT15Fred. Zwarts
28 Jun14:02              i       `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT14olcott
29 Jun10:14              i        +* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT3Mikko
29 Jun15:37              i        i`* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT2olcott
29 Jun11:38              i        `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT10Fred. Zwarts
24 Jun 25              `* Re: HHH(DDD) is correct to reject its input as non-halting --- EVIDENCE THAT I AM CORRECT5Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal