Sujet : Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 05. Dec 2024, 02:31:45
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <3d80e95768bf6260168865530aaad3591aa03fda@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/4/24 8:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/4/2024 6:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/4/24 9:27 AM, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2024 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 12/3/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 12/3/2024 3:03 AM, joes wrote:
Am Mon, 02 Dec 2024 20:48:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 11/28/2024 1:48 PM, joes wrote:
>
You said:
>>> HHH can't simulate itself.
That is WRONG !!!
HHH DOES EMULATE ITSELF PROVING THAT IT CAN EMULATE ITSELF.
We know that HHH halts. It doesn't simulate itself halting.
>
>
Please try and explain how you are not dishonest what you
try to change the subject from my rebuttal of your statement:
>
>>> HHH can't simulate itself.
>
That HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD proves
THAT IT CAN DO THIS.
>
>
But only if your think that wrong answer can be right.
>
I did not mention anything about answers my entire
scope is that HHH does emulate itself emulating DDD
thus conclusively proving that HHH can emulated itself
emulating DDD.
>
Whenever you go out-of-scope like this it surely
seems dishonest to me.
>
>
But the behaivor that HHH shows that it has *IS* an "answer",
DDD emulated by any HHH according to the semantics of
the x86 language cannot possibly reach its "ret" instruction
whether HHH aborts this emulation after N steps or never aborts.
>
Just a nonsense sentence, since HHH can't emulate HHH as it isn't given it, so it can't emulate what it doesn't have it.
If it access the code from "global memory" you are just admitting that HHH isn't the pure function you require it to be.
Even if we fix that and add it to the input, to emulate it per the semantic of the x86 language, it can not abort its emulation, or it violates that semantics (since the x86 language never "aborts" a valid program, which DDD/HHH should be. Thus, the ONLY HHH that could meet that claim would be an HHH that NEVER stops, and thus NEVER returns, but your claim is about an HHH that returns an answer, and thus you are proven to just be a stupid liar that doesn't knwo what he is talking about and is just misusing the words he is saying.
Sorry, you are just adding more nails to the coffin of your repuration with every new lie you add to your history.
…