Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5d0e07f8b84ce3c0db6c568b97e6af3bfd2b863d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqbp05$2td95$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcvlu$34c3r$3@dont-email.me> <vqecht$3epcf$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqf2lh$3j68u$5@dont-email.me> <vqf6mm$3j47v$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqg7ng$3qol2$3@dont-email.me> <vqh07g$26ac$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqhio1$5r7r$1@dont-email.me> <vqhm1s$6fo8$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqih45$bcso$1@dont-email.me> <vqii32$bcd0$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqijht$bcso$3@dont-email.me> <vqik16$bcd0$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqine6$cton$1@dont-email.me> <vqiovv$d4j1$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqiqk0$dc6s$2@dont-email.me> <vqirn6$dje3$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqiug9$duqq$1@dont-email.me> <vqiur3$dje3$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqj2ab$dje3$8@dont-email.me> <vqj2pn$ef0h$7@dont-email.me>
	<vqj342$dje3$10@dont-email.me> <vqj3bc$ef0h$9@dont-email.me>
	<vqj3n1$dje3$12@dont-email.me> <vqj460$il72$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqj4mf$ikc5$1@dont-email.me> <vqj57r$ipa4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqj5k2$dje3$13@dont-email.me> <vqj6e6$j0t2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:58:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3558681"; 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

Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 22:45:58 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 10:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 10:16 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:59 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:49 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:35 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your copy-paste answer to multiple threads indicates you have
>>>>>>>>>> no real rebuttal for what others have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully
>>>>>>>>> addressed*
>>>>>>>>>   <copy-paste response>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, you have no rebuttal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>>>>>> *UNTIL YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND*
>>>>>>> *THE NEXT STEP THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THE OTHER ISSUES*
>>>>>>> <copy-paste response>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't matter, as you've already accepted that your HHH isn't a
>>>>>> solution to the halting problem
>>>>> *I never said that*
>>>> Yes you did, by making no attempt to explain otherwise:
>>>>
>>> *This is all you get from me until this point is fully addressed*
>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
>>> subsequently running HHH(DD) cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>> instruction and terminate normally because DD calls HHH(DD) in
>>> recursive emulation.
>>> 
>> In other words, HHH fails to meet the requirement to be classified as a
>> solution to the halting problem, as you have already admitted.
> Erasing and replacing my words with your words is a real scumbag move.
In other words, you realise you're twisting meanings?

-- 
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.