Sujet : Re: HHH(DDD) computes the mapping from its input to HHH emulating itself emulating DDD
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 05. Dec 2024, 02:41:27
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vir0c7$17d36$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/4/2024 7:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
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,
Why do you have to keep fucking lying about this?
I could die on the operating table in two weeks!
-- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer