Re: Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure

On 6/28/2024 7:58 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 07:28:44 -0500 schrieb olcott:
 

The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator H0 cannot possibly
return.

Yes…
 

Great.
We now have HHH(DDD) and HHH1(DDD) as the standard names.

The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.

 DDD is literally the input. How can you say that is not the
behaviour? Deciders should compute the actual behaviour.
If that is not possible, we call that undecidable.
 

In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by H0.

 The behaviour of DDD is not determined by the H0 simulating
it (although it of course depends on the return value of the
call to it).

When DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation it is
ridiculously stupid to simply ignore that this is happening.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer