Path: ...!news.snarked.org!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: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:37:48 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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> <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> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
 <27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
 <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@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 00:37:49 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3193786"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4614
Lines: 65

On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional
>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, which you
>>>> previously agreed is correct:
>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>>   >>
>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an
>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is
>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>>   >>
>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>>>>
>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different.
>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator
>>>> and subsequently running Y(X).
>>>
>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject and endlessly go
>>> through anything but the exact point.
> 
>> You used to have enough time.
>>
> 
> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.

Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods (claiming 
to be in a system, when you actually have adopted fundamentally 
different definitions for core terms) and try to do something actually 
worth while.

Now, it may be too late, as it seems you are totally unprepared to do 
that sort of work, so you may just die with a life based on being a fraud.

> 
>>> The purpose of these posts is so that my posthumous reviewers will
>>> understand.
> 
>> There won't be any.
> 
>