Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:42:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <977c92f851a690c34e735543c080506a97b93d21@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6l3k$1r2p8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vq72iv$1tapm$3@dont-email.me> <vqbkqs$2t20u$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqcvhm$34c3r$2@dont-email.me> <vqeaiu$3eos7$1@dont-email.me>
	<vqf1ik$3j68u$3@dont-email.me> <vqf2o3$3j47v$2@dont-email.me>
	<vqf3ld$3j68u$10@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:42:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3307354"; 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: 3389
Lines: 42

Am Fri, 07 Mar 2025 09:34:05 -0600 schrieb olcott:
> On 3/7/2025 9:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:58 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/7/2025 2:26 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-06 20:11:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>> On 3/6/2025 2:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-03-04 14:26:39 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-04 03:07:56 +0000, olcott said:

>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of exactly
>>>>>>>>> how DD correctly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>> The question whether DD emulated by HHH exists is too
>>>>>>>> uninteresting that it would need a rebuttal, and so is the
>>>>>>>> question that does it reach its "ret" instruction if it exsists.
>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>> *Proves that the input to HHH(DD) can be rejected as non-halting*
>>>>>> As "DD correctly emulated by HHH" does not exist
>>>>> *No one has made any attempt to show that*
>>>> Maybe not. Perhaps every demonstration of that was just a byproduct
>>>> of some other attempt. Anyway, HHH does not emulate DD correctly to
>>>> the end.
>>> Simulating termination analyzer HHH simulates its input DD until HHH
>>> correctly determines that DD cannot possibly reach its own "return"
>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>> Indeed, HHH reports that it cannot possibly perform a complete
>> (correct)
>> simulation of itself.
>> This is the only possible correct interpretation of the result of HHH.
>> Any other interpretation has no grounds.
> No matter how many times you stupidly ignore the verified fact that DD
> calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation this does not change the fact that
> DD cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction because it calls
> HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
Only when HHH tries to simulate it, not DD by itself.

-- 
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.