Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH --- RECURSIVE CHAIN
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:40:29 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <7411c9bef5388dfd5a373d619fd7004df70c9933@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vo7be3$jug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7r8d$36ra$3@dont-email.me> <vo9ura$i5ha$1@dont-email.me>
 <voahc5$m3dj$8@dont-email.me> <vocdo9$14kc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vocpl7$16c4e$4@dont-email.me> <vof56u$1n9k0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vofnj2$1qh2r$2@dont-email.me> <vohrmi$29f46$1@dont-email.me>
 <vojs0e$2oikq$4@dont-email.me> <vokdha$2rcqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <vom1fr$34osr$1@dont-email.me>
 <ee9d41d5f1c2a8dd8ff44d3ddeee20d2c3bcccc1@i2pn2.org>
 <vomgd8$3anm4$2@dont-email.me>
 <f5d6cbae83eb89e411d76d1d9ca801ef2678cec2@i2pn2.org>
 <voojl9$3mdke$2@dont-email.me>
 <855e571c6668207809e1eb67138de6af48d164fa@i2pn2.org>
 <vorlqp$aet5$2@dont-email.me>
 <e174ca1c1cbc58c67ffae3b67b69f63f21a82f86@i2pn2.org>
 <vospch$k3ct$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 18:40:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="349295"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vospch$k3ct$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4983
Lines: 66

On 2/16/25 8:32 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/16/2025 6:55 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:25:12 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/15/2025 4:03 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:29:45 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/14/2025 6:54 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:21:59 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 9:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/13/25 7:07 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/13/2025 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-13 04:21:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/12/2025 4:04 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 14:41:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course not. However, the fact that no reference to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> article before or when HHH
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That paper and its code are the only thing that I have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about in this forum for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter when you don't say that you are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>> that paper.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is irrelevant to the fact that the subject line
>>>>>>>>>>>> contains a false claim.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is a truism and not one person on the face of the Earth can
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly show otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that the claim on subject line is false is not a truism.
>>>>>>>>>> In order to determine the claim is false one needs some knowledge
>>>>>>>>>> that is not obvious.
>>>>>>>>> When you try to show the steps attempting to show that it is false
>>>>>>>>> I will point out the error.
>>>>>>>> We havm, but you are too stupid to understand it.
>>>>>>>> Since when DD run, it halts,
>>>>>>> THAT IS A DIFFERENT INSTANCE
>>>>>> Why are you passing the wrong input to HHH?
>>>>> I will begin ignoring insincere replies.
>>>> Yes, please shut up.
>>>> But why are you not passing the same instance to HHH?
>>> The first instance of recursion is not exactly the same as subsequent
>>> instances of the exact same sequence of recursive invocations.
>>> It is the same with recursive simulations. When the second recursive
>>> invocation has been aborted the first one terminates normally misleading
>>> people into believing that the recursive chain terminates normally.
>> How interesting. Might this be due to a global variable that basically
>> toggles termination?
>>
> 
> The key verified fact that makes all such counter-arguments moot
> is that DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally.

But that only applies *IF* HHH does such a correct simulation, which it 
doesn't.
> 
> The input DD to HHH(DD) cannot possibly terminate normally
> HHH correctly reports this. No one else has ever gotten this
> far with the halting problem ever before.
>

OF courrse it does, since it calls the HHH(DD) that also aborts and returns.

Your problem is you just don't understand what "behavior" is.

You are just showing that you don't understand the meaning of the basic 
terms you are using, and that you just don't care about that. becuase 
"truth" isn't actually an important concept to you, just your perversion 
of it that says that lies are ok to make up a truth if it supports what 
you want to be true.

Thus, you are shown to be nothing but an ignornat pathological lying fraud.