Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>>>>> Damon wrote:

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address >>>>>>> 0000217a cannot possibly return.

But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO
DEFINED.

DDD is emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted.

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL
return to DDD and it will return also.

Right.

The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
the behavior of the input.

When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
the input.

Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, Richard >>>>>>>> Damon wrote:

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine address >>>>>>>>> 0000217a cannot possibly return.

But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>> DEFINED.

DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to
repeat the process until aborted.

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.

Right.

The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not
the behavior of the input.

When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is
the input.

Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own. Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.

*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*

Nope, it is the TRUTH.

OLCOTT is the one lying.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
  HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
  Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
  HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
  HHH(Infinite_Loop);
  HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
  HHH(DDD);
}

*Each one of these cases meets this criteria*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
    until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
    stop running unless aborted then

    H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
    specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that Professor
Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that recreates the
full behavior of the program represented by the input, which means it
NEVER stops until it reaches an end state, and your H doesn't do that,
or correctly predicts what such a simulation of the input would do, you
can't use the second paragraph, so when it aborts, it can get the answer
wrong, which it does.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/1/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>>>> Richard
Damon wrote:

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly >>>>>>>>>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine >>>>>>>>>>> address
0000217a cannot possibly return.

But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>>>> DEFINED.

DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted.

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it WILL >>>>>>>> return to DDD and it will return also.

Right.

The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but not >>>>>> the behavior of the input.

When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops. DDD is >>>>> the input.

Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own.
Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort.

*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*

Nope, it is the TRUTH.

OLCOTT is the one lying.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

*Each one of these cases meets this criteria*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>

Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that
Professor Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that
recreates the full behavior of the program represented by the input,

No Professor Sipser would agree to this:

_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 is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.

Why do you say that?

He would problem just laugh at you and point out that the input is
incorrect because is isn't actually the representation of a program,
since it references something that isn't part of it.

You are just so stupid you think you know what people much smarter than
you would think.

I don't care what you IQ test scored, It seems you might now fail a
simple cognitive reasoning test, since you show you can't put simple
facts together without adding ideas you make up out of your own lies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 7/1/24 10:18 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 8:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 9:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 7/1/24 12:03 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/1/2024 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 07:49:54 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/1/2024 6:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 10:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:38 PM, olcott wrote:

On 6/30/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 6/30/24 9:03 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/30/2024 7:44 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
Damon wrote:

The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH at machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> address
0000217a cannot possibly return.

But that is NOT the "behavior of the input", and CAN NOT BE SO >>>>>>>>>>>> DEFINED.

DDD is  emulated by HHH which calls an emulated HHH(DDD) to >>>>>>>>>>> repeat the process until aborted.

And, since the HHH that DDD calls will abort is emulation, it >>>>>>>>>> WILL
return to DDD and it will return also.

Right.

The emulation stops, and the emulating behavor of HHH stops, but >>>>>>>> not
the behavior of the input.

When DDD is no longer being emulated all of its behavior stops.
DDD is
the input.

Again: emulating does not change what the input does of its own.
Aborting
an emulation is premature, as the input does not contain an abort. >>>>>>

*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*
*The title of this post is a lie*

Nope, it is the TRUTH.

OLCOTT is the one lying.

void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: goto HERE;
}

void Infinite_Recursion()
{
   Infinite_Recursion();
}

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
}

int main()
{
   HHH(Infinite_Loop);
   HHH(Infinite_Recursion);
   HHH(DDD);
}

*Each one of these cases meets this criteria*

<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>      until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >>>>>      stop running unless aborted then

     H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >>>>>

Right. and since the definition of a "Correct Simulation" that
Professor Sipser would use (as with most of the world) is one that
recreates the full behavior of the program represented by the input,

No Professor Sipser would agree to this:

_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 is correctly emulated by HHH which calls an
emulated HHH(DDD) to repeat the process until aborted.

Why do you say that?

Because he already knows the truth of it.
Now that I am getting closer to death I may contact him again.
I have to perfect my new paper before doing this.

*Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input P* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381636432_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_P

In other words, your logic presumes that it knows better than the person
who spoke what he means.,

Just shows you are a DAMNED LIAR.

You may be unplesantly surprized at his answer, or maybe he will just
lay a bigger trap for you and let you just totally embarass yourself
with your paper.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)