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

On 4/16/25 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/16/2025 7:29 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 16/04/2025 12:40, olcott wrote:

sum(3,2) IS NOT THE SAME AS sum(5,2).
IT IS EITHER STUPID OR DISHONEST FOR YOU TO TRY TO
GET AWAY FOR CLAIMING THIS USING THE STRAW DECEPTION
INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT PARAPHRASE OF MY WORDS.

>
Whether sum(3,2) is or is not the same as sum(5,2) is not the question. The question is whether a universal termination analyser can be constructed, and the answer is that it can't.
>
This has been rigorously proved. If you want to overturn the proof you've got your work cut out to persuade anyone to listen, not least because anyone who tries to enter into a dialogue with you is met with contempt and scorn.
>
The proof stands.
>

 *corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
*corresponding output to the input*
 Not freaking allowed to look at any damn thing
else besides the freaking input. Must compute whatever
mapping ACTUALLY EXISTS FROM THIS INPUT.

Right, and the input is the code for the DD tha calls the HHH that aborts its simulation and returns 0.

 int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) == 5 even if God and all his angels say it == 7.

Right, and the input is the code for the DD that calls the HHH that aborts its simulation and returns 0, and thus this DD halts.

 Likewise for the actual behavior of the input to HHH(DD)
when measured by the actual semantics of the x86 language
that includes XXX simulating itself simulating DD.

But xxx doesn't correctly simulate its input, and that isn't even a concept in the definition of the x86 language, so you are just admitting that you definitions are messed up.

 The direct execution of DD DOES NOT FREAKING HAVE DD
INVOKING ITS OWN EMULATOR STUPID !!!

So? The input to HHH doesn't either, as HHH isn't "its emulator" except to HHH,

 The behavior is different because of this STUPID !!!
Initially I could not see how anyone could possibly be
be this stupid so I called many people despicable lying bass turds.
I am still doubting that people can actually be this stupid.
 

No, it isn't, and you have accepted that because you have decided to not even try to provide the actua step where they differ.
Sorry, all you are  doing is proving that you are just a pathological liar that doesn't know what he is talking about.