XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2024 4:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 11/17/24 3:49 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And you need to PRECISELY specify what you are referencing.   
   >   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And thus admit that you are not talking sense, as each HHH that you   
   > think of creates a DIFFERENT program DDD   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, it is dishonest for you to lie.   
   >   
   > I never said that N instructions correctly emulated is no instructions   
   > correctly emulated, just that it isn't a correct emulation that provides   
   > the answer for the semantic property of halting, which requires   
   > emulating to the final state or an unbounded number of steps.   
   >   
      
   void Infinite_Recursion()   
   {   
      Infinite_Recursion();   
      return;   
   }   
      
   You are stupid liar. A smart liar would not be caught   
   in a lie with such a simple counter-example   
   THAT IS NEITHER EMULATED TO THE FINAL STATE NOR AN   
   UNBOUNDED NUMBER OF STEPS TO DETERMINE NON-HALT STATUS.   
      
   --   
   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)