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: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:54:39 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <3ca3a9ea253e710c9a1e4f8095510c607aa92c00@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>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me>
 <3e49cecf2307c385ab65edcfb375b8ad54480402@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdnf6$380b4$2@dont-email.me>
 <76a4db051a2d8043a7cafd46f5dfbdfdb005ca96@i2pn2.org>
 <vqf119$3j68u$1@dont-email.me> <vqf2i6$3j47v$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf3e6$3j68u$9@dont-email.me> <vqf3ks$3j1hs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqg5bk$3qe49$1@dont-email.me>
 <fcb35e8f9e81e513ae37369bc224f02a43d0c4e4@i2pn2.org>
 <vqg9l3$3qol2$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:54:39 -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: <vqg9l3$3qol2$10@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7931
Lines: 136

On 3/7/25 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 8:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/7/25 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2025 9:33 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2025 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 9:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:49 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:02 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> So what's the next step?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Yes, that is the directly executed program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally*
>>>>>>>> No, DD doesn't specify anything about what is to simulate it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 DD correctly emulated by HHH specifies 
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>>>> emulation that cannot possibly reach its own "ret" 
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction BECAUSE
>>>>>>>>>>> IT SPECIFIES RECURSINVE EMULATION.
>>>>>>>> No, HHH aborts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But the HHH that decides are returns can't be that HHH, so the 
>>>>>>>>>> DD given
>>>>>>>>>> to that HHH doesn't call the correctly emulating HHH, so you 
>>>>>>>>>> whole
>>>>>>>>>> argument is shown to be the fraud you have admitted to.
>>>>>>>>> That seems to be a little incoherent so I cannot tell what you are
>>>>>>>>> saying yet you are at least attempting to use reasoning.
>>>>>>>>> I am just saying what the actual x86 machine code actually 
>>>>>>>>> specifies
>>>>>>>>> therefore any rebuttal is necessarily incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And the actual code of DD specifies that it halts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Straw-man deception*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Strawman. HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, so HHH fails 
>>>>>> to do a compete simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulating termination analyzer HHH 
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying it maps the halting function?
>>>>
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>>> directly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And the HHH that correctly emulated the DD can't possibly answer, 
> 
> That is stupidly wrong and you know it.
> 

It is something you yourself have proven. I guess you are calling 
yourself a liar.


Of course, your problem is that you logic is just inconsistant since it 
is based on lies and fraud, so you think you have also proved the opposite.

Sorry, you admitted that you work is based on the fraud of redefinition 
of core state-of-art terms, and thus nothing you say actual has value or 
can be made sense of.

You have destroyed your reputation by handing your work on such basic 
and intentional errors that no one will trust anything you said, because 
you contradict yourself so often.