Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct

On 7/11/25 4:53 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2025 10:54 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:01:33 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/11/2025 3:15 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-10 14:15:31 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/10/2025 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-09 12:45:54 +0000, olcott said:
>

*Here is HHH matching that pattern*
executed HHH simulates DDD that calls emulated HHH(DDD) that
simulates DDD that calls emulated emulated HHH(DDD)
>
*Here is the 197 page full execution trace of that*
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

>
That trace is a little long. Where in that trace is the forth level
of recursive simulation statrted?
>

After the non-terminating behavior pattern is matched on line 996
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c HHH rejects DDD
as specifying non-halting behavior.

>
This is a good example of what I meant in another comment when I said
that you don't answer questions.
>

When you ask an incorrect question, like you did I provide an answer to
the corrected question.

>
We know you like to twist words or take them literally, aka constructing
strawmen.
>

 I always take words literally any other way is dishonest.
 

Then why do you twist the meaning of "Program", "Input", "Halting" or even "Correct Simulation", or even the problem you are worling on.
Programs include all their code, thus DDD, as a program includes the code of HHH even if you try to deny it.
The "Input" needs to detail ALL the code of the program described, and thus includes that code of HHH, and thus you can't talk about changing HHH to a Hypthetical version that also changes the HHH that DDD uses, since that would change "the input"/
Halting is defined as a property of a PROGRAM, and non-halting means that the program (or its correct simulation) doesn't reach a final state even after running it for an unbounded number of steps (so the finite number of steps that your various HHHs do don't count as showing "non-halting")
Correct SImulation means a complete simulation, as a partial simuation doesn't correct simulate every instruction, since part of every non-terminal instruction include the definition and then we execute the next instruction.
And the Problem *IS* about a decider reporting on the direct exectution of the program its input represents, even if you don't understand how that can work.
All you are doing is proving that you are too stupid and ignorant to know the meaning of the words you are using, and too stupid and ignorant to see your stupidity and ignorance.
The fact that you can't break down any of your claims to simpler steps. or point to actual reliable sources for your claims, just shows you have reached the point where you have run out of idea to try to defend your lies, and now are stuck in just repeat them so much they will seem to be true.
Sorry, the world sees through that, and you are killed your reputation, and any idea you might have had with worth has been tanished by the shit that you have piled on it.