Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt

Am Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:08:04 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

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.

You communicate very ineffectively. You should listen to others and
respond to their questions.

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.

3. Richard is annoying but right, and you are a delusional spammer who
can't rephrase.

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.

DDD halts if HHH does, period. And HHH shall be a decider.

Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD pair that I was
talking about for weeks and weeks.

What do you think the shells are?

To counter this I started talking about every element of the infinite
set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly exist.

Nobody is interested in an incomplete simulator.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.