Path: ...!news.misty.com!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
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 07:19:36 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3046c50f0c20330aa9373356cfe08d5fe85824fe@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
 <08508353c793195b12c3d1ee161d4f98117edeea@i2pn2.org>
 <vq72um$1tapm$4@dont-email.me>
 <78278c992d775e04b5e419a5d91211f60b1d1258@i2pn2.org>
 <vq86l5$23nt0$3@dont-email.me>
 <916619eca9efaac302dc83d59753075a7691a1d5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8lcu$29b9l$3@dont-email.me>
 <13333e55d02a9f73a4ed86bbf8ab5ac9ecc87fee@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8na8$29b9l$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 12:19:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2953217"; 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: <vq8na8$29b9l$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5367
Lines: 104

On 3/5/25 12:26 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2025 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/4/25 11:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2025 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/25 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 6:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/25 10:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it proves that the HHH that rejects the input, didn't do a 
>>>>>> correct simulation, and thus was looking at the wrong input, 
>>>>>> because you don't understand what a program is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DD only is non-halting if *THE* HHH (and there is only one at any 
>>>>>> time) never aborts. SInce HHH musts abort its emulation to 
>>>>>> "reject" the input, it proves it didn't do the needed correct 
>>>>>> emulation, and you are shown to be just a blantant liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the HHH that correctly emulated DD, can't be a decider and 
>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also. "the HHH", defined in your Halt7.c doesn't do that, 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
>>>>>>> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
>>>>>>> own "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to provide the above proves that you are clueless
>>>>>>> about this code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, I have shown why your logic is wrong, 
>>>>>
>>>>> If that was true you could show this with
>>>>> something besides rhetoric and double-talk.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you call all I say as just rhetoric just shows how stupid you are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>> AND YOU CAN'T SHOW OTHERWISE
>>>
>>
>>
>> Right, but the HHH that does that doesn't answer,
> 
> The code proves that it does answer yet code is
> over your head. All you have is rhetoric anchored
> ignorance.
> 

Right, and it also proves that it didn't do a correct emulation.

Your logic says you think that HHH can be two different programs at the 
same memory address, a blantant error.

> 
>> and there is only one HHH in existance at a time in the given memory 
>> locations, so you claim is worthless and based on lies.
> 
> If you were not clueless you would know that the code
> proves that you are wrong.

Nope, it proves me right, YOU are the clueless one that can't see your 
error.

You don't seem to have enough brains to understand that if you change 
something, it isn't the same as it was. This is one basic sign of insanity.

SOrry, but you are just proving that you mental capability has been 
greatly impaired, and you are too stupid to see your own errors.