XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/29/2025 11:22 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 7/29/2025 9:35 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>> olcott  wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/29/2025 5:49 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   >>>>> In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 7/29/2025 2:39 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> [ .... ]   
   >   
   >>>>>>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   >>>>>>> Your dreams are no verified facts. HHH aborts before the simulation   
   >>>>>>> would reach the final halt state in a finite number of steps, as proven   
   >>>>>>> by world-class simulators using exactly the same input. The infinity is   
   >>>>>>> only in your dreams.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>> HHH(DDD) must simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD calls HHH(DDD)   
   >   
   >>>>>> HHH1(DDD) must NOT simulate itself simulating DDD because DDD DOES NOT   
   >>>>>> CALL HHH1(DDD)   
   >   
   >>>>>> At this point I think that you are a fucking liar.   
   >   
   >>>>> As has been established elsewhere in this thread, you are no position to   
   >>>>> call anybody else here a liar.  Glass house inhabitants, throwing stones,   
   >>>>> and all that.   
   >   
   >>>>> And you used to distinguish yourself from other cranks by sticking to   
   >>>>> decorous language, and generally being courteous.  Not any more.  That is   
   >>>>> a most unwelcome change.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> void DDD()   
   >>>> {   
   >>>>     HHH(DDD);   
   >>>>     return;   
   >>>> }   
   >   
   >>>> *That not one single person here*   
   >>>> (besides those that I invited from the C groups)   
   >>>> acknowledges that DDD simulated by HHH specifies   
   >>>> recursive simulation   
   >   
   >>>> cannot be reasonably attributed to anything besides   
   >>>> willful deception.   
   >   
   >>> Foul mouthed lying on your part.  It can be attributed to your lack of   
   >>> self awareness and lack of technical ability.  Everybody here but you can   
   >>> see that.   
   >   
   >   
   >> It is not any lack of technical ability that determines   
   >> whether or not DDD correctly simulated by HHH can or   
   >> cannot reach its own "return" instruction final halt state.   
   >   
   > It is a lack of technical ability on your part which is unable to judge   
   > whether such a correct simulation is possible.  Everybody else sees that   
   > it is not, so further questions about it are non-sensical.   
   >   
      
   void DDD()   
   {   
      HHH(DDD);   
      return;   
   }   
      
   _DDD()   
   [00002192] 55         push ebp   
   [00002193] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   
   [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192  // push DDD   
   [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2  // call HHH   
   [0000219f] 83c404     add esp,+04   
   [000021a2] 5d         pop ebp   
   [000021a3] c3         ret   
   Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]   
      
   I have no idea why are are saying the something   
   that is trivial is impossible.   
      
   When HHH emulates: "push ebp" then HHH has correctly   
   emulated the first instruction of DDD correctly.   
      
   Perhaps you have an ACM email address and don't   
   know very much about programming?   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)