XPost: comp.theory   
   From: richard@damon-family.org   
      
   On 11/17/24 8:46 PM, olcott wrote:   
   > On 11/17/2024 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 11/17/24 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 11/17/2024 2:51 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I will also add, that since you have dropped your requirements on   
   >>>> HHH (or are seeming to try to divorse yourself from previous   
   >>>> assumptions) there are MANY HHH that can complete the emulation,   
   >>>> they just fail to be "pure functions".   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> The damned liar despicably dishonest attempt to get away   
   >>> with changing the subject away from DDD reaching its final   
   >>> halt state.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Which is just what YOU are doing, as "Halting" and what a "Program" is   
   >> are DEFINED, and you can't change it.   
   >>   
   >   
   > YET ANOTHER STUPID LIE.   
   > A SMART LIAR WOULD NEVER SAY THAT I MEANT   
   > PROGRAM WHEN I ALWAYS SPECIFIED A C FUNCTION.   
   >   
      
   But then you can talk about "emulation" or x86 semantics, as both of   
   those are operations done on PROGRAMS.   
      
   You are just admitting that what you are talking about has NOTHING to do   
   with the field of study you are trying to talk about, because you are   
   just too confused about what things mean.   
      
   Sorry, but the words you are trying to use have technical meanings are   
   terms of art, and to ignore that meaning just makes you into a LIAR.   
      
   You are of course welcome to try to fully define another field that you   
   are working in, but until you actually do that, you are stuck in the   
   official classical field.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)