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

Am Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:11:19 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/26/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/26/2024 8:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

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

On 10/26/2024 10:55 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/26/24 11:46 AM, olcott wrote:

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

On 10/26/24 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/25/24 7:22 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/25/2024 5:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

The problem is that any HHH that answers for the input built
on it, must have been a decider that aborts when emulating
that input, and thus only does a partial emulation.

It is ridiculously stupid to require a complete emulation of a
non-terminating input. No twisted words there.

HHH doesn't need to to the complete emulation, just show that
the complete emulation doesn't reach an end.
IF you want to call that rediculously stupid, you are just
showing your own stupidity, as that IS the requirement, and you
can't show anything that proves it otherwise, because you just
don't know anything about the fundamental facts of what you
talk about.

Then you admit that DDD emulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the x86 language cannot possibly reach its own
"return" instruction?

The problem is that your HHH doesn't do that,

namely, simulating DDD, in particular not the abort condition in the
HHH called from there.

Of course it doesn't do that. It is ridiculously stupid for an
emulating termination analyzer to emulate a non-terminating input
forever.

Right, but it needs to answer about what the unaborted emulation
would do,

Exactly !!!

And the unaborted emulation HALTS, since DDD calls the HHH that does
abort and return,
You keep on trying to lie by playing a shell game and changing the
imput to the system, which includes the code of the HHH that DDD
calls.
Sorry, you are just proving your utter stupdity.

No you are merely contradicting yourself, thus an objective measure of
your error opposed to a subjective opinion of me.

WHERE did I contradict myself?
The CORRECT answer is based on the actual beahvior of the direct
exectution of the program. That is the definition.
It is a provable fact, that the COMPLETE (and correct) emulation of the
input will give the same answer as that, so is an proper equivalent for
that definition.

To the best of my knowledge you recently admitted that DDD emulated by
HHH never reaches its return instruction whether HHH aborts its
emulation or not.

You can quote-mine all you want, but he didn't.

--
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.