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

On 6/28/2025 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/28/2025 10:52 AM, dbush wrote:

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?
>

 *I am not going to tolerate any misdirection to any other points*
 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 The only point relevant to this forum is that DDD correctly
simulated by HHH

Is something that you have admitted on the record doesn't happen:
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