On 10/6/24 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/6/24 3:05 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2024 1:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/6/24 2:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2024 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/6/24 2:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2024 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/6/24 1:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/6/2024 11:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/6/24 8:39 AM, olcott wrote:
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly >>>>>>>>>>> exist never returns. Each of these HHH emulators that does >>>>>>>>>>> return 0 correctly reports the above non-halting behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>
No, the DDD return (if the HHH(DDD) gives an answer), just >>>>>>>>>> after the HHH that emulated them gave up.
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH that can possibly
exist never returns.
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
DDD emulated by each corresponding HHH
Which, as you have been told but seems to be above your head
means that the execution of DDD,
gets to ignore the fact that DDD was defined to
have a pathological relationship with HHH that
HHH cannot ignore.
No, that isn't ignoring it, but taking into account that since HHH >>>>>> is defined to be a specific program, it has specific behavior.
The behavior of the executed DDD after the emulated
DDD has already been aborted is different than the
behavior of the emulated DDD that must be aborted.
Nope, it is the exact same code on the exact same data, and thus
does the exact same behavior.
The execution trace proves that the executed DDD has
different behavior that need not be aborted because
emulated DDD must be an is aborted.
Nope, whst instruction ACTUALLY EMULATE showed a different behavior
than the executed DDD?
All you do is look at a DIFFERENT INPUT which is just a lie, since
that isn't the DDD that HHH was given (since the PROGRAM DDD includes
the all the exact code of the HHH that it calls, thus you can't change
it to hypothosze a diffferent non-aborting HHH)
No one can be stupid enough to think that:
MUST BE ABORTED
is exactly the same as
NEED NOT BE ABORTED
Who said otherwise.
The directly executed DDD need not be aborted.
DDD emulated by HHH must be aborted, thus
proving that their behavior IS NOT THE SAME.
No, the design of HHH does abort its emulation, because if you had a
DIFFERENT HHH, which would be given a DIFFERENT DDD (since DDD includes
the HHH that it is calling) it would fail worse at the task at the
meta-level by not answering.
Once you define that *THIS* version of HHH *WILL* abort its emulation of
DDD, then it turns out that it didn't need to, as shown by the complete emulation done by HHH1.
So, your UTTER STUPIDITY is revealed by the fact that you think it is ok
to look at a different input then the one actually given, or perhaps you
just don't understand what a program actually is because you have CHOSEN
to be ignorant.
Either way, you have been shown the truth, but reject it, thus making
your statements just blantant pathological lies.
Your arguement is based on comparing apples to oranges (The DDD calling
the HHH that abort, which is the actual DDD in the system, and the DDD
that calls some other thing desceptively also called HHH that doesn't,
which is what this HHH acts like DDD is calling), and that has been
shown to you, but you ignore it.
In other words, you are just proving that
PPPP EEEEE TTTTT EEEEE RRRR
P P E T E R R
P P E T E R R
PPPP EEEEE T EEEEE RRRR
P E T E R R
P E T E R R
P EEEEE T EEEEE R R
OOO L CCC OOO TTTTT TTTTT
O O L C C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C O O T T
O O L C C O O T T
OOO LLLLL CCC OOO T T
L IIIII EEEEE SSS
L I E S S
L I E S
L I EEEEE SSS
L I E S
L I E S S
LLLLL IIIII EEEEE SSS
AND THINKS THAT IS JUST OK.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)