Re: Olcott seems to be willfully ignorant --- AKA is Fred a Liar ?

Op 03.jul.2024 om 18:24 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 11:18 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/3/2024 11:04 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 03.jul.2024 om 17:51 schreef olcott:

On 7/3/2024 10:40 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

>
[ .... ]
>

_DDD()
[00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d         pop ebp
[00002183] c3         ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]

>

*This is the repeating state*

>

But not an *infinitely* repeating state.

>

The criteria that I spent two years writing and the best selling
author of theory of computation textbooks agrees with says nothing
about *infinitely* repeating state.

>

Irrelevant, because that is about a correct simulation. Your simulation
is incorrect, so Sipser does not apply here.

>

OK you are a liar then.

>
I don't think so.  There is only one liar on this newsgroup, and it's not
Fred.
>

 *A liar is anyone that denies this*

Another display of lack of correct reasoning.

 _DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
 DDD is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat this process until the emulated DDD is aborted.

I proved that HHH cannot possibly correctly simulate itself.
You are unable to show the error in the proof.
If you then repeat 'correctly', who is ignoring the truth?