Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it ---

On 8/10/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 3:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 4:36 PM, olcott wrote:

>
As I have countlessly proven it only requires enough correctly
emulated steps to correctly infer that the input would never
reach is "return" instruction halt state.

>
Except that HHH does't do that, since if HHH decides to abort and return, then the DDD that it is emulating WILL return, just after HHH has stopped its emulation.
>
You just confuse the behavior of DDD with the PARTIAL emulation that HHH does, because you lie about your false "tautology".
>
>

>
Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.

>
Claiming a false statement is a tautology only make you a liar.
>
In this case, you lie is that the HHH that you are talking about do the "correct emulation" you base you claim on.
>
That is just a deception like the devil uses, has just a hint of truth, but the core is a lie.
>

 What I say is provably correct on the basis of the
semantics of the x86 language.

Nope.
The x86 language says DDD will Halt if HHH(DDD) returns a value.

 

>
*You are stuck in repeat mode with nothing new*
You either
(a) Deny tautologies
(b) Change the subject with the strawman deception
(c) Pure ad hominem with no reasoning at all.
>
The problem is (a) your "tautolgy" only applies to the HHHs that you

don't then talk about, the ones that only emulate forever and never answer.
>

 Each element of this set corresponds to one element of
the set of positive integers indicating the number of
x86 instructions of DDD that it correctly emulates.

Right, and for EVERY finite number N, your HHH(DDD) will return to DDD, so DDD will return, it just returns after HHH has aborted its emulation of that DDD.

 In other words you forgot that the set of positive numbers has no end.

Right, but true for all is true for all.
Given the full details of your set of HHH, we can compute the number of instructions that DDD will execute before it halts as a function of the number of actual x86 instructions that HHH emulates.
Remember, every HHH creates a NEW program DDD, so you can't use one trace to try to support the others.

 

All other DDDs do halt.
>

 In other words you forgot that never reaching a final
halt state does not count as halting.

But it does reach its final halt state, it is just the partial emulation of it by HHH didn't.
Rememver

 

(b) YOU logic is the strawman deception, because YOU are the one changing the meanig.
>
(c) You just don't understand what the ad hominem falacy is.

 When your whole "rebuttal" is nothing besides insults.

But it isn't, unless you consider it an insult to point out the actual definitions of wrods, or the actual behavior of a program.
The rebuttal stand on their own without the statments where I use the fact that you are wrong to show the clear state of your mind,

 

I don't say you must be wrong because you are "stupid" or some other attribute, I logically show that you are wrong, with a logical arguement, and then point out how your refusal to understand that error demonstartes your mental and moral condition.
>
Now, the fact that you try to justify YOUR unsubstantiated position by trying to stick labels on me, but not try to actually defend your work,

 I have totally proven my work, you can't keep track
of this proof from one message to the next.

Nope. You haven't proven anything.
You have made CLAIMS, not PROOF.
Where is your reference to the base accepted truths of the system that you built your argument on.
Where is the statement of the truth preserving operations to combine those statement to get to you claim.
Nowhere, because you don't have a proof, and I am not sure you know how to make one. It seems you just know some phylosophical arguement techniques, which are NOT "proofs" in a formal system.
It seems you just don't understand what you are working in, and are jusdt totally lost in it, just as you are lost in life since you base you life on lies and deceit.
You try to claim some tautologies, but refuse to clean up your sloppy language that makes the statements not actually tautologies under the definitions that you are trying to use.

 

just shows that YOU are the one doing the fallacy, and that you are effectively admitting you have nothing to base you defense on, so are just trying to get away with a fallacy.
>
Sorry, you are just proving how stupid you are, and that you are so stupid you can't even understand your error, which is the worse kind of stupid you can be.
>
The fact that you don't even try to base you logic on ANY actual accepted basis just proves you have nothing to work from.