Re: Richard seems to continue to blatantly lie -- I hope I am wrong about this

On 7/3/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 8:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 8:36 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/3/2024 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/3/24 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

_DDD()
[00002172] 55               push ebp      ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec             mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000       push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff       call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404           add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d               pop ebp
[00002183] c3               ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>
DDD correctly emulated by any element of the infinite
set of every pure function HHH cannot possibly reach
its own ret instruction and halt. That HHH aborts its
emulation at some point or never aborts its emulation
cannot possibly change this.
>

>
No, you are just showing your ignorance.
>
It is IMPOSSIBLE to "Correctly Emulate" this input per the semantics of the x86 instruction set as given, as it referncee undefined memory.
>

>
I already stipulated that the memory IS DEFINED with an
x86 emulator. Also you have seen that I have proven this.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>

>
And if you assume that stipulation for the emulation, then you are stipulating that the contents of ALL THE MEMORY is "part of the input".
>
Also, by stipulating that it is a x86 emulator, do you mean an actually complete emulator that fully emulates the input,

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 Liar. *It is forbidden from fully emulating non-halting inputs*
Liar. *It is forbidden from fully emulating non-halting inputs*
Liar. *It is forbidden from fully emulating non-halting inputs*

Says what?
The DEFINITION of a UTM says that it WILL simulate the representation of a non-hatling machine forever.
Yes, A DECIDER can't do something that takes forever to make its decision, but that requirement doesn't change the meaning of what it needs to determine.
The impossibility is just one of the reasons that Halting isn't a computable problem, which is a perfectly fine results.

      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted
      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted
      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted

But only after it CORRECTLY DETERMINES the result of the CORRECT (and complete) SIMULATION of the input will never halt.
Since D(D) will halt, it is impossible to correctly determine that a complete simulaiton of it will not halt.
You "Logic" tries to lie by changing the input from D to D' when you replace H with H' that doesn't abort its simulation, which just means you LIED about looking that the same input.
That is how ALL your logic seems to be based, you stack one lie on top of another.