Re: Who knows that DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction final state? BUT ONLY that DDD

On 8/3/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/3/2024 5:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a *DIFFERENT* input, so they don't prove anything together except that each one didn't go far enough.

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 When each HHH correctly emulates 0 to infinity steps of
its corresponding DDD and none of them reach the "return"
halt state of DDD then even the one that emulated infinite
steps of DDD did not emulate enough steps?
 

Just says lying YOU.
You got any source for that other than yourself?
My guess is not.
The problem is that every one of those emulation is of a *DIFFERENT* input, so they don't prove anything together except that each one didn't go far enough. (or your input isn't a thing that actually has a halting property so you are starting with a type error).
And, a finite number of steps emulated and then aborted doesn't show that THIS input is non-halting. The fact that giving that DDD/HHH pairing to a real correct emulator, shows that it can emulate the input to the return shows that this DDD is actually halting. It just takes longer than that HHH could emulate.
This is your problem, you just make up lies and then you believe your own lies and can't face the actual truth of things.
Sorry, you are just proving that you are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot that has a total reckless disregard for the truth because you have brainwashed yourself with your lies.
NOTHING You claim should be taken seriously, because you just don't understand what truth means.