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

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.

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

All other DDDs do halt.
 

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

(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.

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.

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.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer