Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT

On 4/15/25 8:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/15/2025 4:00 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[ .... ]
>

You [dbush] continue to stupidly insist that int sum(int x, int y)
{return x + y; }

>

returns 7 for sum(3,2) because you incorrectly
understand how these things fundamentally work.

>
That is clearly not the case.  dbush has never asserted that, as far as I
can remember.
>

It is stupidly wrong to expect HHH(DD) report on
the direct execution of DD when you are not telling
it one damn thing about this direct execution.

>
The DD in HHH(DD) _is_ the specification of the direct execution.  HHH is
incapable of following this specification.

 That is the same as saying that tiny is specified to mean huge,
stupidly incorrect. It is moronic that people insist on ignoring
the pathological relationship that DD specifies that changes the
behavior of DD to make this behavior DIFFERENT THAN THE BEHAVIOR
OF THE DIRECT EXECUTION !!!

You only think that because you don't understand what the words mean.
The FULL behavior of a program is COMPLETELY controlled by its code.
The "pathological" relationship between DD and HHH is part of DD's code, and equally affects its behavior whether directly executed, or by a correct simulation of the description of it, and HHH's attempt to do that just fails BECAUSE of that relationship, but that failure existed in HHH before DDD was created, because that was built into the code of HHH at that point.
The code of HHH says precisely that when it is asked to simulate this particular input, it *WILL* abort its simulation for an incorrect reason and return 0 to its caller, which means that DD will just halt as indicated by ITS code.
DD has not problem with its own behavior, as it is FULLY defined by the preexisting behavior defined by HHH, which was just wrong.
The problem with your argument is that partial simulation does not define behavior, so the simulation by HHH doesn't actually say what the final behavior of DD is, and when you talk about DD correct simulated by HHH, that is just a LIE, as this HHH doesn't do that, and to talk about a DIFFERENT program HHH, is just invoking the fallacy of equivocation, because you do it in a way that CHANGES the input, since to be a program in the first place, it includes the code of the one HHH that it was defined to be "pathological" to.
So, by doing so you just prove that you are nothing but a pathological liar.

 

>

Not just wrong persistently STUPIDLY  WRONG !!!

>
Not at all.  The bulk of your posts over many years have been
persistently and stupidly wrong.
>

-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

>