Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: joes <noreply@example.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:07:59 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <4f35ec422d945012ad1a6376b9c8193cc9a3964e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vqcvu3$34c3r$5@dont-email.me>
	<24c66a3611456f6a6969dc132fd8a227b26cbcbd@i2pn2.org>
	<vqdlqp$371bi$6@dont-email.me> <vqeceq$3epcg$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqf2bp$3j68u$4@dont-email.me> <vqh19v$2mh0$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me> <vqhm4q$6fo8$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqhs03$6vdc$5@dont-email.me> <vqig6a$bcd0$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqihd5$bcso$2@dont-email.me> <vqii7c$bcd0$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
	<f667993f66e38ce7610b933bbbf13508dfee1e23@i2pn2.org>
	<vqj1m3$ef0h$3@dont-email.me>
	<81f99208ab5ac8261e19355d54de31bb0ba8cdc6@i2pn2.org>
	<vqk4t4$o4oh$4@dont-email.me>
	<af6a3bd08f89f22772743f9e0946d5cb663ddbc4@i2pn2.org>
	<vqkqkk$sf7f$1@dont-email.me>
	<2c05662d218a25329eec1fb052e96758227d094c@i2pn2.org>
	<vql4uq$uv13$2@dont-email.me>
	<ce80c9dc3a24d0ab0257e871338b59945526b563@i2pn2.org>
	<vqll7i$11p4p$1@dont-email.me>
	<9e4fbf536ccba32198cd7e8f00605165347a10da@i2pn2.org>
	<vqmrs2$1ckgi$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:07:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3857802"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="nS1KMHaUuWOnF/ukOJzx6Ssd8y16q9UPs1GZ+I3D0CM";
User-Agent: Pan/0.145 (Duplicitous mercenary valetism; d7e168a
 git.gnome.org/pan2)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 5348
Lines: 70

Am Mon, 10 Mar 2025 09:10:10 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/10/2025 6:04 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/9/25 11:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2025 8:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/25 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/9/2025 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/9/25 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/9/25 9:25 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/2025 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 10:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will
>>>>>>>>>>>> do when main calls it.
>>>>>>>>>>> *WHEN YOU UNDERSTAND THIS THEN YOU KNOW YOU WERE WRONG* DD
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in
>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>> But The HHH You are talking about doesn't do a correct
>>>>>>>>>> simulation, so this statment is not applicable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHich is *NOT* a program, as it has an external reference.

>>>>>>>> Wrong, because emulaiting for "N Steps" is NOT correctly
>>>>>>>> emulation.
>>>>>>> Correctly emulating N steps is emulating N steps correctly.
>>>>>> Which is only partially emulating it correctly, and only partially
>>>>>> correct is incorrect.

>>>>>>> Everyone here that has sufficient technical competence can see
>>>>>>> that for any N steps of DD correctly emulated by HHH that DD
>>>>>>> cannot possibly reach its own final state and terminate normally.
>>>>>> So? As has been pointed out, since HHH can't do enough steps to get
>>>>>> to the actual answer, it never CORRECTLY emulated the input enough
>>>>>> to get the answer if it aborts.
>>>>> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent programmer sees
>>>>> then HHH does not need to emulate DD more than twice to know that
>>>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own final state and terminate
>>>>> normally.

Then HHH is not a decider.

>>>> The pattern that HHH sees is IDENTICAL to the pattern that HHH1 saw,
>>>> up to the point it aborts.
>>> In other words you do not believe that HHH can see what every
>>> competent programmer sees.
>> The problem is that what "Every Competent Programmer" will see what I
>> described, that since HHH aborts and returns 0, that DD will reach the
>> return.
> When their only knowledge of HHH is that HHH emulates N steps of DD then
> every competent programmer has consistently agreed that DD emulated by
> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" instruction and terminate
> normally.
We also know that HHH definitely returns, *even when simulating itself*.

-- 
Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math:
It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.