Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:54:37 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <1b9fbbd0fba1c733b05eebaa6bdbc6652c2ecdb5@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me>
 <edb151ad06518b611c6b8a3276cbe8acbdd5e371@i2pn2.org>
 <vqg9jk$3qol2$9@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:54:37 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3440006"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vqg9jk$3qol2$9@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4936
Lines: 76

On 3/7/25 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/7/25 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2025 10:25 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 16:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:59 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 21:13 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:13 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 04:53 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has 
>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the halting problem, but you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO 
>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE SHIT!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report 
>>>>>>>>>> that changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator 
>>>>>>>>>> and running HHH(DD) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Despicably dishonest attempt at the straw-man deception.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No rebuttal. So, we agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' 
>>>>>> instruction. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. Trying to get away with changing the subject
>>>>> WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.
>>>>>
>>>> If you do not agree that HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction 
>>>> (that world-class simulators do reach, just as the direct execution 
>>>> does), show how it reaches the 'ret' instruction.
>>>
>>> *set X*
>>> When-so-ever any input to any simulating termination
>>> analyzer calls the simulator that is simulating itself
>>>
>>> *result of set X*
>>> this input cannot possibly reach its own final state
>>> and terminate normally because it remains stuck in
>>> recursive emulation.
>>
>> But the failure of the PARTIAL emulatipon done by the termination 
>> analyzer doesn't show that the input is non-haltiong
>>
> 
> That is stupidly wrong and you know it.
> 
> 

What is wrong with it?

Do you not admit that the HHH that answers only did a partial simulation 
because it aborted its simulation?

Do you not understand that "Halting" is the Machine (itself) Reaching a 
final state WHEN IT IS RUN.

Oh, thats right, you are changing fundamental terms in your fraud and 
you think that you can define your POOP to be halting, when you are just 
showing that you are sick with diarrhea and leaving a mess everywhere.

Sorry, you admitted that your work is a FRAUD, and then just keep 
admitting that you are sticking to that fraud and ignoring the truth.

Sorry, you have sunk your life into that lake of fire,.