Re: HHH maps its input to the behavior specified by it --- reaches its halt state --- Which DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns and answer, which it does since it is a decider.

On 8/9/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 8:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 9:33 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/9/2024 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/9/24 12:15 AM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 10:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/8/2024 9:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/8/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
Each HHH of every HHH that can possibly exist definitely
*emulates zero to infinity instructions correctly* In
none of these cases does the emulated DDD ever reach
its "return" instruction halt state.
>
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
*There are no double-talk weasel words around this*
>
There is no need to show any execution trace at the x86 level
every expert in the C language sees that the emulated DDD
cannot possibly reaches its "return" instruction halt state.
>
Every rebuttal that anyone can possibly make is necessarily
erroneous because the first paragraph is a tautology.
>
>

>
Nope, it is a lie based on comfusing the behavior of DDD which is what "Halting" is.
>

>
Finally something besides
the strawman deception,
disagreeing with a tautology, or
pure ad hominem.
>
You must first agree with everything that I said above
before we can get to this last and final point that it
not actually directly referenced above.
>

>
Why do I need to agree to a LIE?
>
>

*Two key facts*
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.
>

>
WRONG, as proven.
>
The SIMULATION BY HHH doesn't reach there, but DDD does,

Now you have to agree with (a).
>

>
Why? since you statement was proven false, the accuracy of one of the terms doesn't matter.
>
I guess you don't understand how logic works, you have already shown that there is a lie in your proof, and therefore it is wrong.

>
you changed the subject and found no lie.
>

>
Nope, since HHH is being asked about HALTING, and the definition of Halting is about the behavior of the PROGRAM,

>
I will not discuss that with you until after you agree
to these two tautologies proving that you intend to be honest.
>
(a) The "return" instruction is the halt state of DDD.
(b) DDD correctly emulated by any HHH never reaches this state.

>
I have shown that your (b) is NOT a tautology, unless you stipulate that your HHH NEVER aborts its emulation and return EVER.
>

>
One thing good about you being stuck in rebuttal mode
it that this keeps making my words get clearer and clearer.

 No, you are stuck in LYING MODE.

>
When we look at every HHH that can possibly exist then
we see that DDD correctly emulated by each one of these
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

 But ONLY ONE of those actuallu "correctly emulates" the input, and that one isn't a decider.
 

In other words you are trying to keep getting away
with the bald-faced lie that when HHH correctly
emulates N instructions of DDD (where N > 0) that
it did not correctly emulate any instructions of DDD.
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
*Give it up you lost you are stuck in repeat mode*
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer