Sujet : Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is Correctly rejected as non-halting V2
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theory sci.logic comp.ai.philosophyDate : 13. Jul 2024, 15:30:56
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v6tvig$3imib$13@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/13/24 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>
This is double talk, because no HHH can possibly exist that simulates itself correctly.
>
Your definition of correct contradicts the semantics of
the x86 language making it wrong.
>
No your ideas of the x86 language contradicts the actual sematic of the language.
Where does it ever even imply that a partial emulation correctly predicts the behavior of the full program?
You switch from disagreeing with the x86 language to disagreeing
that all deciders must halt.
*This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*
No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of
every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of
0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to
reject its input DDD as non-halting.
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2
Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH is correctly rejected as non-halting V2
