XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/17/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > 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.   
   >   
      
   No, but it is the fact that it CAN be emulated for an unbounded number   
   of steps that makes it non-halting. If there was a finite number of   
   steps that the input could be emulated for to reach a final state (like   
   can be done with DDD, that number is just bigger than what HHH does)   
   then it would be halting, like DDD is.   
      
   The fact that this is determinable with a finite emulation just shows   
   that there is a induction-like proof that allows us to show this in a   
   finite number of steps.   
      
   Again, you don't understand the definitions, which is what makes YOU the   
   STUPID LIAR.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)