Re: Verified facts regarding the software engineering of DDD, HHH, and HHH1 ---

On 10/26/24 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 10:35 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

>
Right, and either it follows the rules of the x86 language and NEVER stop, or it disobeys the requirements of the x86 language to stop its emulaiton and return.
>

>
In other words after all of these years you still don't get this:
    "simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until"
>
Repetition to help your ADD see what it keeps missing.
Repetition to help your ADD see what it keeps missing.
Repetition to help your ADD see what it keeps missing.

>
But it fails to meet the requirements, because your logic presumes that HHH will never abort.
>

 Not at all. In the hypothetical case where HHH never
aborts then DDD never stops running.

No, because in the Hypotherical case, DDD still calls the original HHH.

 "would never stop running unless aborted"
"would never stop running unless aborted"
"would never stop running unless aborted"
"would never stop running unless aborted"

Which, since the HHH that DDD calls does abort, as that is the definition of THAT HHH (even if you hypothoze some how changing the outer HHH).
You just don't understand that it is just a LIE to try to change the code of the program represented to HHH, or to not be giving it a representation of an actual program.
My first guess is that you are just so stupid you don't understand what a program actually is in the fields you are trying to talk about.\
Sorry, but you are coming off THAT STUPID.

 *ChatGPT understand this completely*
https://chatgpt.com/share/67158ec6-3398-8011-98d1-41198baa29f2
 Your reasoning really is isomorphic to determining that you
never need to ever eat any food on the basis that you know
in advance that after eating food you will no longer need
to eat food after you have eaten.
 

Nope. your use if bad logic just proves that you don't understand what you are tallking about.
It seems you LIKE to use logical fallacies thinking they make you arguements stronger, but they only prove your stupidity.