Path: ...!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: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 08:02:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <76a4db051a2d8043a7cafd46f5dfbdfdb005ca96@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>
	<5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
	<vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
	<2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
	<vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
	<4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
	<vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
	<920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
	<vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
	<3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
	<vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me>
	<3e49cecf2307c385ab65edcfb375b8ad54480402@i2pn2.org>
	<vqdnf6$380b4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 08:02:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3246656"; 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: 5166
Lines: 67

Am Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/6/25 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even though
>>>>>>>>>>> logically requried, because you need to hide your fraud.
>>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>>>> One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count to
>>>>>>>>>> ten. DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>> Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of my
>>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>> What is the next step?
>>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that it is
>>>>>>>> the the simplest way to state the key element of the whole proof
>>>>>>>> and make this element impossible to correctly refute.
>>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT IS
>>>>>>>> DISHONEST.
So what's the next step?

>>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree on the
>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question.
>>>>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY behavior
>>>>>> that matters is the behavior of the directly executed program whose
>>>>>> description is provided.
>>>>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the basis of what its
>>>>> finite string INPUT specifies.
Yes, that is the directly executed program.

>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
>>>>> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
No, DD doesn't specify anything about what is to simulate it.

>>>> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the simulation up to
>>>> the end. No more, no less.
>>>> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure of a
>>>> simulation.
>>> The finite string of DD correctly emulated by HHH specifies recursive
>>> emulation that cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE
>>> IT SPECIFIES RECURSINVE EMULATION.
No, HHH aborts.

>> But the HHH that decides are returns can't be that HHH, so the DD given
>> to that HHH doesn't call the correctly emulating HHH, so you whole
>> argument is shown to be the fraud you have admitted to.
> That seems to be a little incoherent so I cannot tell what you are
> saying yet you are at least attempting to use reasoning.
> I am just saying what the actual x86 machine code actually specifies
> therefore any rebuttal is necessarily incorrect.
And the actual code of DD specifies that it halts.

-- 
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.