Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/8/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:00 AM, dbush wrote:

On 3/8/2025 9:03 AM, olcott wrote:

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a
simulating termination analyzer specifying infinite
recursion or recursive emulation cannot possibly
reach their own final state and terminate normally.

>
Apparently you don't understand that inputs to a termination analyzer, simulating or otherwise, are specified by the specification that is the halting function:
>
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed
>
And HHH(DD)==0 fails to meet the above specification

>
*THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY THUS IMPOSSIBLY FALSE*
Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>
It is ridiculously stupid to believe that HHH must
report on behavior other than the above behavior.
>

 It must if it is to be classified as a halt decider or termination analyzer as per the definition.

In other words you believe that HHH should just ignore the
fact that DD makes a call that prevents DD from ever reaching
its own final state? *THAT IS FREAKING MORONIC*
Neither HHH nor DD have any idea that DD calls its own
emulator in recursive emulation.
None-the-less both HHH and anyone with sufficient technical
competence can see that DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
possibly reach its own final state.
Two software engineers with MSCS agreed so there is no
gaslighting me over this. Any attempt to gaslight me
looks ridiculously foolish.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer