Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!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 10:10:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <86093d8dc64efb1205e3307f4fd25431af98e577@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me>
	<4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
	<vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
	<vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
	<vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
	<vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
	<27b6da57f540cd39d2918411d8c94789678e3f45@i2pn2.org>
	<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$3@dont-email.me>
	<a390b2624353f0c413856a153ebbc4ccbdeb2f56@i2pn2.org>
	<vqikjn$bcso$5@dont-email.me> <vqilbl$bcd0$6@dont-email.me>
	<vqimab$bcso$7@dont-email.me> <vqioro$d4j1$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqiqa6$dc6s$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 10:10:23 -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
Bytes: 4952
Lines: 64

Am Sat, 08 Mar 2025 19:19:02 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/8/2025 6:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 7:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 5:54 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 5:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/25 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:58 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 03:31 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:20 AM, joes wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally because DD calls
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No such HHH exists.
>>>>>>>>>> The programmer of HHH has the following options when HHH
>>>>>>>>>> reaches the call to HHH:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) It just follows the call and starts simulating the code of
>>>>>>>>>> HHH. This might eventually lead to infinite recursion. So, no
>>>>>>>>>> correct simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The code proves otherwise
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c


>>>>>>>> A program does not prove. In particular, it does not prove that
>>>>>>>> no different program exists.
>>>>>>> The source code 100% perfectly proves exactly what it actually
>>>>>>> does. Whenever anyone disagrees with what it actually does (as
>>>>>>> most people here have tried to get away with) they are necessarily
>>>>>>> incorrect.
>>>>>> Which is that HHH will look at memory not defined to be part of its
>>>>>> input, and thus HHH is not the pure function you have agreed it
>>>>>> must be.
>>>>> THIS IS A SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGY AGREE OR STFU !!!
>>>>> Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and
>>>>> subsequently running HHH(DD)  cannot possibly reach its own final
>>>>> state and terminate normally.
Why change the input though?

>>>>> Two people with masters degrees in computer science agreed.
>>>>> Gaslighting me on this makes you look like a complete nitwit.
>>>> I think everyone would agree, as you said, that if the code of HHH is
>>>> replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run, that it
>>>> will not halt. So now what?
>>> We add the mandatory required details to your simplistic idea such
>>> that additional elaboration from this full set of details:
>>> 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.
>> Obviously.  So now what?
> 
> You still don't understand that we get the same effect whether we
> replace the code or not.
That's not true. HHH and HHH1 behave differently.

-- 
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.