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 07:32:18 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <0fb6946ffbc2272d0834ef101965fa599441fc7d@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>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me> <vqd0hc$34ing$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqd2i4$34sev$1@dont-email.me> <vqd39j$34ing$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqd3cp$34sev$4@dont-email.me> <vqd3g2$34ing$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqdi8e$371bi$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 12:32:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3277289"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqdi8e$371bi$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8223
Lines: 140

On 3/6/25 8:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2025 3:18 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/6/2025 4:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2025 3:15 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2025 4:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY 
>>>>>>>>>> behavior that matters is the behavior of the directly executed 
>>>>>>>>>> program whose description is provided.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>>>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the
>>>>>>>>> basis of what its finite string INPUT specifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES
>>>>>>>>> *Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the simulation 
>>>>>>>> up to the end. No more, no less.
>>>>>>>> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure of 
>>>>>>>> a simulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The finite string of replacing the code of HHH with an 
>>>>>>> unconditional simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> specifies recursive emulation that cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES
>>>>>>> RECURSINVE EMULATION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not the code of HHH is replaced
>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach
>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that makes sense.  Now what?
>>>
>>> BF Skinner's extinction
>>>
>>
>> You wanted people to accept that 
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
> 
> With my new system it becomes dead obvious that all
> recent rebuttals are nothing more than a dishonest dodge.
> 
> 
> 

No, your admissition that your ideas are based on FRAUD just shows that 
you don't know what you are talking about.

You think it is ok to change the meaning of the terms of the system, and 
still stay in the system.


Try to just redefine cancer as a disease which make the person immortal, 
and just get rid of all your problems. That is as