Re: DDD correctly simulated by HHH can't possibly reach its own "return" statement --- Liars on comp.theory

On 6/28/2025 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:39 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:30 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:21 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:14 AM, dbush wrote:

On 6/28/2025 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-06-27 at 14:36 -0500, olcott wrote:

I am only here for the validation of the behavior
of DDD correctly simulated by HHH.

>
The definition of HHH is missing.

>
The definition is specified in this part that you
dishonestly erased:
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
>

>
The dishonest one here is YOU, as it was not wij who snipped the below in his reply but YOU:
>

>
I stop at the first counter-factual mistake so I stop here.
Everything else is ignored.
>

>
In other words, you INTENTIONALLY don't read things that prove you wrong.
>

>
On 6/28/2025 2:43 AM, wij wrote:
 >
 > The definition of HHH is missing.
>
On 6/27/2025 2:36 PM, olcott wrote:
 > Termination Analyzer HHH simulates its input until
 > it detects a non-terminating behavior pattern. When
 > HHH detects such a pattern it aborts its simulation
 > and returns 0.
 >
>
It is a verified fact that the definition of HHH was
provided thus the claim that it was not provided is
counter factual.

>
>
No, you didn't give a definition of HHH, just gave a vauge incomplete description of what you think it does.
>

 It completely defines the generic notion of a simulating
termination analyzer and
 It specifies every detail about HHH that is required
to correctly determine whether or not DDD correctly
simulated by HHH can possibly reach its own simulated
"return" statement final halt state.
>

But why would you say that when you've admitted on the record (see below) that DDD is not in fact correctly simulated by HHH?
On 5/5/2025 8:24 AM, dbush wrote:
 > On 5/4/2025 11:03 PM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 5/4/2025 10:05 PM, olcott wrote:
 >>> On 5/4/2025 7:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
 >>>> But HHH doesn't correct emulated DD by those rules, as those rules
 >>>> do not allow HHH to stop its emulation,
 >>>
 >>> Sure they do you freaking moron...
 >>
 >> Then show where in the Intel instruction manual that the execution of
 >> any instruction other than a HLT is allowed to stop instead of
 >> executing the next instruction.
 >>
 >> Failure to do so in your next reply, or within one hour of your next
 >> post on this newsgroup, will be taken as you official on-the-record
 >> admission that there is no such allowance and that HHH does NOT
 >> correctly simulate DD.
 >
 > Let the record show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this
 > newsgroup after the above message:
 >
 > On 5/4/2025 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:
 >  > D *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > indicates that professor Sipser was agreeing
 >  > to hypotheticals AS *NOT CHANGING THE INPUT*
 >  >
 >  > You are taking
 >  > *WOULD NEVER STOP RUNNING UNLESS*
 >  > to mean *NEVER STOPS RUNNING* that is incorrect.
 >
 > And has made no attempt after over 9 hours to show where in the Intel
 > instruction manual that execution is allowed to stop after any
 > instruction other than HLT.
 >
 > Therefore, as per the above criteria:
 >
 > LET THE RECORD SHOW
 >
 > That Peter Olcott
 >
 > Has *officially* admitted
 >
 > That DD is NOT correctly simulated by HHH

What is is a verified fact that you openly and blatantly lied about wij erasing your description when it was in fact you yourself that did it.
 

That you made no attempt to refute the above and in fact dishonestly erased it constitutes your admission that you were lying and will in fact lie about the simplest of things that can be easily verified as false.
This demonstrates to all that nothing you say can be taken seriously.