XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/13/2024 8:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/13/24 7:39 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 7/13/2024 3:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> This is double talk, because no HHH can possibly exist that simulates   
   >>> itself correctly.   
   >>   
   >> Your definition of correct contradicts the semantics of   
   >> the x86 language making it wrong.   
   >>   
   >   
   > No your ideas of the x86 language contradicts the actual sematic of the   
   > language.   
   >   
   > Where does it ever even imply that a partial emulation correctly   
   > predicts the behavior of the full program?   
   >   
      
   You switch from disagreeing with the x86 language to disagreeing   
   that all deciders must halt.   
      
   *This proves that every rebuttal is wrong somewhere*   
   No DDD instance of each HHH/DDD pair of the infinite set of   
   every HHH/DDD pair ever reaches past its own machine address of   
   0000216b and halts thus proving that every HHH is correct to   
   reject its input DDD as non-halting.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)