Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt

On 7/12/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:

 

*DDD NEVER HALTS*

DDD ONLY calls HHH...

DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the
second line of DDD no matter what.

Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.

DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly
emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line
of DDD no matter what.

WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD
and HHH's emualtion of it.

We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1
to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86
emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly
exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of
00002174 and halt.

By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct
simulation is a FULL simulation

In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1
step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly
emulated.

When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie
to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you
know it.

But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH

I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!

Please don't insult ADD people.

This does not say from 1 to 8 steps
when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated
When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not
see these words I have to know why this is.
My aim is effective communication. I can't fix
the issue unless I know what the issue it.
The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard
is a Liar. If is is Richards's ADD then repeating
the same sentence a dozen times seems to help.
If Richard is being a liar then calling him a Liar
and telling him where this leads seems to help.

You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.

when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in
the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD
halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT HALT.
Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
https://jorynjenkins.com/hiding-the-pea/
shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD
pair that I was talking about for weeks and weeks.
To counter this I started talking about every element
of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly
exist. That is what I am doing now.

The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating
input.
 

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