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: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 18:45:16 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6g9l$1ptg9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq722k$1tapm$1@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 23:45:16 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2870849"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 4188
Lines: 76

On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> I wonder why Olcott keeps repeating that HHH fails to reach the 
>>>> 'ret' instruction, where the direct execution or world-class 
>>>> simulators have no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction of exactly 
>>>> the same finite string as input.
>>>
>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of
>>> exactly how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its
>>> own "ret" instruction.
>>>
>> And that is exactly what Olcott does not show.
> 
> Likewise I never attempt to show exactly how
> all squares are round.
> 
>> So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, where 
>> the direct execution and some world-class simulators have no problem 
>> to reach it.
> 
> DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by HHH1.
> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.

Which just show your stupidity, as DD doesn't HAVE its own emulator, and 
CAN'T know who or if it is being emulated.

Your claims are just based on the insain definition your truth fairy has 
made up for you.

> 
> Assuming that the pathological relationship between HHH
> and DD has no effect on the behavior of DD when it is
> easily proven that it does IS STUPID.
>

So, prove it does. What instruction, actully correctly emulated by HHH 
differs from the trace of DD directly run or emulated by a emulator that 
finishs, like HHH1.

WHen we actually look at it, we see that the behavior is exactly the 
same until HHH aborts its emulation or uses a private unlisted input 
that shows it isn't a pure function.

Sorry, you continued lack of an ability to show this just proves you 
KNOW you are lying, or are so stupid that you can't understand what 
truth actually is.