On 8/26/2025 12:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
You have already established that HHH returns 0
to claim that DDD never halts.Liar
On 8/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 26/08/2025 20:00, olcott wrote:
On 8/26/2025 12:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
You have already established that HHH returns 0
to claim that DDD never halts.Liar
I'm sorry? Are you now saying DDD halts?
He's referring to his weasel-word phrase "DD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language".
On 8/26/2025 4:00 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 26/08/2025 20:57, dbush wrote:
On 8/26/2025 3:44 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 26/08/2025 20:00, olcott wrote:
On 8/26/2025 12:49 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
You have already established that HHH returns 0
to claim that DDD never halts.Liar
I'm sorry? Are you now saying DDD halts?
He's referring to his weasel-word phrase "DD emulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the x86 language".
So does he think DD halts or doesn't he?
And why do I get the feeling that the right answer to that
question is "no"?
He thinks that DD (as is) halts, but if you were to replace the
code of HHH with a pure simulator then the resulting DD would not
halt, so based on that he's claiming HHH(DD)==0 correct.
This is of course nonsense.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 08:33:43 |
Calls: | 10,387 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 14,060 |
Messages: | 6,416,660 |