Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.network!news.neodome.net!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HHH(DDD)==0 is correct
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 09:01:48 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <47880ae0a4fac737e4332fc629d6d95124ebfa5d@i2pn2.org>
References: <103jmr5$3h0jc$1@dont-email.me> <103k0sc$2q38$1@news.muc.de>
 <103k1mc$3j4ha$1@dont-email.me> <103lfn1$ml0$1@dont-email.me>
 <103m813$6dce$1@dont-email.me> <103ol2u$raq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103onmp$rq7e$1@dont-email.me> <103r0ce$1esb9$1@dont-email.me>
 <103rhf6$1hc53$8@dont-email.me>
 <0c50a8ee4efb36cef4271674792a090125187f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <gPg8Q.1988877$4AM6.189428@fx17.ams4>
 <a60543ff9feb748df80b32970c67bb8c7ab13d89@i2pn2.org>
 <tJA8Q.6$r61e.2@fx11.ams4>
 <5e7f84c84b4ed51e195dd33afd9ed7eca89be454@i2pn2.org>
 <F9U8Q.300$ZQ4b.16@fx16.ams4> <1044r60$3v2k1$1@dont-email.me>
 <1045gll$37j5$1@dont-email.me> <1045uma$5p40$1@dont-email.me>
 <1048077$n883$1@dont-email.me> <1048imf$qd4f$3@dont-email.me>
 <85f05c8b6ceeefbe07791b4dd06b25b83d8297a4@i2pn2.org>
 <1048l5m$ra0n$1@dont-email.me>
 <26fa177bac9523d317f0cf5899abd882e7515374@i2pn2.org>
 <104968v$v1s9$1@dont-email.me>
 <03046f5e7157fc81f0e14a285499a7bc5d1d65b2@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jul$11mmt$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:21:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3479965"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <1049jul$11mmt$4@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/4/25 6:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/4/2025 3:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/4/25 2:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2025 12:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/4/25 9:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/2025 8:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:50:23 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:35 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 12:56:42 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/3/2025 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-07-03 02:50:40 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2025 11:37 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:12:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/30/25 2:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. A simulator does not have to run a simulation to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> completion if
>>>>>>>>>>>> it can determine that the input, A PROGRAM, never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If. But here it confuses that with not being able to simulate past 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> recursive call.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the correct simulation of the input that
>>>>> specifies the actual behavior of this input.
>>>>
>>>> Right, and that means correctly simulating EVERY instruction that 
>>>> makes up the PROGRAM, which must include the code of *THE* HHH, or 
>>>> you can't "correctly simulate" the call instruction.
>>>>
>>>> SIn
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this simulation cannot simulate past the recursive
>>>>> call then this correctly simulated input cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own correctly simulated final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it can, as the call goes into HHH, and you then just simulate 
>>>> the code of HHH.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you mean like this? (as I have been telling you for three years)
>>> https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
>>
>> Yes, so where in that trace does HHH's "correct simulation" differ 
>> from the exact same simulation generated by HHH1 before HHH aborts?
>>
>>
> 
> When we compare DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated
> by HHH1 SIDE-BY-SIDE. (Mike didn't do it this way).
> 
> *The difference is when*
> HHH begins to simulate itself simulating DDD and
> HHH1 NEVER begins to simulate itself simulating DDD.

And where does that show as a difference in the trace?

"itself" isn't something in the code/

Both are supposed to be simuating the input, which is DDD calling HHH.

You still need to try to prove your FALSEHOOD that the simualtion of the 
HHH called by DDD depends on who is doing the simulation, when that 
concept is in direct contradiction to the defintions of correct simulation.

Sorry, you are just proving you are a stupid liar,

> 
> HHH doesn't actually abort its simulation of DDD until
> after has simulated many hundreds of simulated instructions
> later. HHH simulates itself simulating DDD until DDD calls
> HHH(DDD) again.

And thus HHH is part of the input, and thus is the same HHH as is 
simulating it, and thus the first HHH simulated will also abort its 
simulation and return 0, a fact IGNORED by you, because you are too stupid.

> 
> I only address one point at a time because you
> find that one single point to be impossibly too
> difficult for you. When I tell you something
> 500 times you never notice that I even said it once.
> 

So ADDRESSS it. You just repeat your same lies.

Your "one thing at a time" is just your excuse to not get to the actual 
problems, and just let you keep on equivocating between you multiple 
inconsistant definitions of what you are talking about.

That is the FACT of you argument, it is based on internally 
self-contradictory meanings.

For example, is the code of HHH part of the input, you need both:

NO, so that every variation of the program DDD is the "same", but also
YES, as you need it to be there to simulate it, it just isn't a 
"constant" part

In other words, your world is just based on lies.