Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 07:32:22 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0f69744febcee40328dd1f482395bdf8b233b64e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6g9l$1ptg9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq722k$1tapm$1@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
 <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
 <vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me>
 <500045f9223c5ab455ca73a046d61ddd5122db2e@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9fi$2mueq$7@dont-email.me>
 <7c141f3bbc815bd533b7f7cb62fccd68c7297b1b@i2pn2.org>
 <vqd35l$34sev$2@dont-email.me>
 <9de4f5fb186e935ff0a10420c69e919cdff3da64@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdn50$380b4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:32:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3277289"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vqdn50$380b4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8307
Lines: 144

On 3/6/25 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/25 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2025 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 'ret' 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where the direct execution and some world-class 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulators have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no problem to reach it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH1. DD DOES
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just show your stupidity, as DD doesn't HAVE its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulator, and CAN'T know who or if it is being emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> straw-man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deception to change the subject away from:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich is the strawman, that you are too stupid to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recogines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will show that it is not straw-man after you quit 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dodging that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong order,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even 
>>>>>>>>>>>> though logically
>>>>>>>>>>>> requried, because you need to hide your fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count to ten.
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>> Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of my 
>>>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>>> What is the next step?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that it
>>>>>>>>> is the the simplest way to state the key element of the
>>>>>>>>> whole proof and make this element impossible to correctly refute.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT
>>>>>>>>> IS DISHONEST.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree on 
>>>>>>>> the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and thus any HHH that does a correct emulation can not 
>>>>>> return to its caller, 
>>>>>
>>>>> We have been over this point too many times you are
>>>>> just a liar. Liar and Christian is a combination with
>>>>> very bad consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have said that many times, but you can't actually show what is 
>>>> wrong with it. 
>>>
>>> A simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly simulates
>>> its input finite string DD until it correctly determine
>>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>>> and terminate normally.
>>>
>>> HHH does not stupidly get stuck in non-halting behavior
>>> as you suggest that it should.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, but until it *CORRECTLY* determines that the ACTUAL PROGRAM DD 
> 
> You are dishonestly trying to get away with dodging the
> first step of my airtight proof:
> 
> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
> 
> The more that people dodge this point the more dishonest
> they will seem to unbiased reviewers.
> 
> Since you know that dishonestly has eternal consequences
> I am puzzled by your behavior.
> 

No, you are just trying to continue your FRAUD based on the lies of 
using the wrong definitions.

You start with an error of the formation of your problem, since neither 
DD or HHH are actually "Program" in the correct meaning of the term for 
Computation Theory, since your DD doesn't actually include all the code 
for the program DD since you make it clear that it gets it "definition" 
of HHH by what ever happens to be located in memory, but that needs to 
be something which your final claimed HHH actually fails to meet.

Then HHH fails to be a program as it uses data that isn't part of its 
"input" (the finite string of the input) but goes off and uses the 
contents of other memory,

THen you consider a partial emulatioin to be "correct" when it doesn't 
actually show the behavior you claim it shows.

So, your "airtight proof" is as airtight as a submarine with a screen 
door for its main hatch, in other words, it just sinks.

Sorry, but when you admitted to your fraud of just redefining core terms 
in a system, you established that you just don't know what you are doing.

Redefining terms put you in a new system, that needs to be fully 
defined, and the properties of that new system determined, a step you 
havn't done at all.

Sorry, all you are doing is proving your utter stupidity, you ignorance 
of how logic works, and that your life is just based on FRAUD and LIES.

That is the fact.