Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Subject: Re: The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 19:07:25 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <8c4132e888eb8d75500bd6ad3bafde47fdffa1c9@i2pn2.org>
References: <1021ii4$3327l$6@dont-email.me> <1021jls$32035$1@dont-email.me>
 <1021jr1$3327l$7@dont-email.me> <1021jvn$32035$2@dont-email.me>
 <1021k32$3327l$9@dont-email.me> <1021k8c$32035$3@dont-email.me>
 <1021kgp$34oo9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2025 23:51:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3748038"; 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: <1021kgp$34oo9$1@dont-email.me>

On 6/7/25 11:06 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2025 10:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 6/7/2025 10:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2025 9:56 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2025 9:51 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2025 10:32 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> The execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shows the divergence
>>>>>>> of DDD emulated by HHH from DDD emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>    HHH1(DDD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shows that DDD emulated by HHH and DDD emulated by
>>>>>>> HHH1 diverges as soon as HHH begins emulating itself
>>>>>>> emulating DDD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From the execution trace of HHH1(DDD) shown below*
>>>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH1              DDD emulated by HHH
>>>>>>> [00002183] push ebp               [00002183] push ebp
>>>>>>> [00002184] mov ebp,esp            [00002184] mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>> [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD    [00002186] push 00002183 ; DDD
>>>>>>> [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH    [0000218b] call 000015c3 ; HHH
>>>>>>> *HHH1 emulates DDD once then HHH emulates DDD once, these match*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH emulates is at
>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002183.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that HHH1 emulates is at
>>>>>>> the machine address of 00002190.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The next instruction of DDD that both HHH and HHH1 emulates is at 
>>>>>> the machine address of 000015c3, 
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>> *That is not an instruction of DDD*
>>>>
>>>> In other words, you're not operating on algorithms.
>>>
>>> In other words you are not actually paying any attention.
>>>
>>
>> I'm very much paying to attention to the fact that you stated that the 
>> code of the function H is not part of the input and that you're 
>> therefore not working on the halting problem.
>>
> 
> You say that I said things that I never said.
> 

You have said that your example follows the proof from Linz and all 
other similar proofs.

Your statement=s are just entirely self-contradictory and show that you 
are nothing but a liar.

Maybe if you started by learning the meaning of the words you are using, 
you might be able to make sensible statements, but then, you would 
understand that you argument is just based on you lying about what is 
there by using wrong definitions.