XPost: comp.theory   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/17/2024 8:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Your rebuttals are stupid.   
   It cannot be emulated for an unbounded number of steps.   
   That is a stupid thing to say.   
      
   If you were not stupid you could say that it cannot possibly   
   reach its "return" instruction final halt state even in a   
   hypothetical number of steps.   
      
      
   --   
   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)