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

On 8/10/2024 3:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 4:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 3:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 3:50 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 2:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 3:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 1:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 2:11 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/10/2024 12:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/10/24 1:37 PM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>
*The set of HHH x86 emulators are defined such that*
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 emulates.

>

>
*This is the mistake that I corrected*

>
But since none of your traces show more that 4, that is a lie, since you haven't been able to establish the HHH itself correctly emulates ANY of the instructions of the program DDD after the call HHH, as everything says it jumps to something other than the correct x86 emulation of the program DDD that it was given.
>
But, we can overlook that, since you fail otherways.
>
>

But every one that emulates for a finite number of steps, and then returns create a halting DDD, so you claim is just disproven.

>
<snip>

>
And it still does. If HHH emulates for a finite number of steps, then returns, then the PROGRAM DDD that calls that HHH will halt.
>

>
*Yes this is your ADD*
We have only been talking about DDD emulated by HHH.

>
If you mean the emulation of DDD by HHH, you need to say so.
>
DDD is one and only one thing, and that is the PROGRAM DDD. The fact that you want the DDD that is emulated by HHH doesn't change it.
>

>
It is a tautology that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction halt state.

 But that only applies for the HHH that DOES (Completely) correctly emulate its input DDD,

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.
Denying a tautology seems to make you a liar. I only
say "seems to" because I know that I am fallible.
*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.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer