Re: Olcott is too stupid to know that only the DDD correctly simulated by onlly the HHH that doesn't abort cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?

On 8/2/24 7:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 6:51 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 6:24 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/2/2024 4:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/2/24 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:

Who here is too stupid to know that DDD correctly simulated
by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction?
>
void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
>

>
Right, but the only HHH that correctly simulates is the one that never aborts, and thus fails to be a decider, and that isn't the HHH that you actually have shown the code for, or claim to be right.
>

>
That is probably the least stupid answer here recently.
Mikko, Joes, and Fred would probably not do as well. Let's
see if the others can catch up to at least this much.
>
Mike is usually pretty good at his analysis until recently.
He may not understand this key aspect as well as you do.
>
>

>
So you accept that the only DDD that is non-halting is the DDD that calls the HHH that does a fully correct emulation of its input, and thus doesn't abort it?
>

>
I never said that. The fact the we agree on one key point may
be helpful to get others to agree to this one key point.
>
You did not even get this one key point exactly correctly in
that you answered a different question than the exact question
that I actually asked. You did seem to get it better than Joes,
Fred or Mikko.
>

>
Then you can't use that point, as obviously we disagree on a key definition in it.
>

>
We agree that if HHH never aborts then DDD never halts.

>
No, if the one and only HHH in the problem is programmed not to abort, then DDD never halts.
>
You don't seem to understand that HHH is that (in a given example) HHH is a fixed piece of code with a defined algorithm and behavior.
>

>
You did not even get this one key point exactly correctly in
that you answered a different question than the exact question
that I actually asked.

>
because I like to answer the question that you seem to be really meaning to be asking.
>

 In other words you are too stupid, as I expected.
 

NOPE, I am just a fw steps ahead of you and can see where you are going, and close the doors in front of you, which is why you get so upset at me.
The flaws in your logic are so transparent, I can see many of your moves before you post them. Of course, the fact you keep on repeating them helps too.