XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2024 1:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 11/17/24 1:36 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> void DDD()   
   >> {   
   >>    HHH(DDD);   
   >>    return;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> _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 emulated by any encoding of HHH that emulates N   
   >> to infinity number of steps of DDD cannot possibly   
   >> reach its "return" instruction final halt state.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Except your DDD *CAN'T BE EMULTATED* by *ANY* HHH, as it is IMPOSSIBLE   
   > to emulate the Call HHH per the x86 language from your input, as the   
   > data isn't tnere.   
   >   
      
   In patent law this is called incorporation by reference.   
   I referred to every element of an infinite set of encodings   
   of HHH. You already know that it is ridiculously stupid   
   that you suggest I should write them all down.   
      
   When each of them correctly emulates N instructions of its   
   input then N instructions have been correctly emulated. It   
   is despicably dishonest of you to say that when N instructions   
   have been correctly emulated that no instructions have been   
   correctly emulating.   
      
   >> This applies to every DDD emulated by any HHH no   
   >> matter the recursive depth of emulation. Thus it is   
   >> a verified fact that the input to HHH never halts.   
   >>   
   >   
   > But since NO HHH can do the first part of your requirements, that of   
   > actually emulating the input, you are just proved to be an lying idiot.   
   >   
   > Also, Computation Theory isn't interested in Subjective Non-semantic   
   > problems like yours, but only objective problems, especially those that   
   > are semantic (which means one that actually IS based on the FINAL   
   > behavior, after an unbounded number of steps) properties.   
   >   
   > Your ignorance of that fact just shows your utter stupidity.   
   >   
   > It doesn't what the emulation of HHH is, if it is only finite, only the   
   > unbounded emulation of that input (Which will be halting if that DDD is   
   > based on an HHH that answers after finite time).   
   >   
   > THe HHH that DOES a semantic emulation unfortunately never answers, so   
   > fails to be the needed decider.   
   >   
   > So, you just struck out twice.   
   >   
   > You then keep on lying about it, which gets your ejected from the logic   
   > pool..   
   >   
   > Sorry, that is just the facts, you are showing you are just too stupid   
   > to have your idea have any merits, and thus even if there was something   
   > to your ideas, you have probably successfully killed them.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)