Re: Why do people here insist on denying these verified facts?

On 6/22/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 2:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 3:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 1:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 1:29 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/22/2024 12:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/22/24 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:

>
void DDD()
{
   HHH0(DDD);
}
>
The input to HHH0(DDD) includes itself.
The input to HHH1(DDD) DOES NOT include itself.
>
It is stipulated that correct emulation is defined by the
semantics of the x86 programming language and nothing else.

>
And thus, your emulation traces show that your "Simulating Halt Deciders" do not do a "Correct Simulation"

>
Apparently your ADD preventing you from paying close attention
to ALL of my words.
>
*Function names adapted to correspond to my updated paper*
>
void DDD()
{
   H0(DDD);
}
>
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>
*When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct*
*emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language*
>
then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that
its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return.

>
Since your H0 has never demonstrated that is actually DOES the correct simulation per your stipulation,

>
Liar
>

>
Then where is it?
>

When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation
is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that
when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD)
cannot possibly return.

>
But that isn't what H0 should be answering about.
>

 That you and others lack a sufficient understanding of the nuanced
details of the theory of computation is your mistake and not mine.

No, it is that you don't have enough honest cells in your body to understand that you have to follow the requirements for something to say you are doing it.

 The correct measure of the behavior of the actual input is DDD
correctly simulated by H0 according to the definition of the
semantics of the x86 programming language.

FRKM WHERE?
That is just YOUR LIE!!!!!
That makes everything you say to be about POOP, and no one wants your POOP.

 That you and others keep referring to the behavior of non-inputs
is flat out stupid. That is not the way that actual computations
actually work.
 

No, it is the actual DEFINED BEHAVIOR of the input. If that isn't the input, then you are just LYING about what you are doing.
YOU ARE JUST TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE WORDS YOU PARROT.
SHOW YOUR SOURCE THAT SAYS WHAT YOU CLAIM.
NO RELIABLE SOURCE (and not just from you) AND IT IS JUST A LIE.