Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:11:59 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a390b2624353f0c413856a153ebbc4ccbdeb2f56@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:11:59 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3501884"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqhj3n$5r7r$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7169
Lines: 121

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:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 22:03:39 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you know that what you're working on has 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the halting problem, but you don't care.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> QUIT THE
>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHIT!
>>>>>>>>>>>> You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that
>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD) will not halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional
>>>>>>>>>> simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, 
>>>>>>>>>> which you
>>>>>>>>>> previously agreed is correct:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>   >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot 
>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>   >>> terminate normally by reaching its own "return" 
>>>>>>>>>> instruction.
>>>>>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>>>>>   >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an
>>>>>>>>>>   >> unconditional simulator then it can be shown that DD is
>>>>>>>>>>   >> non-halting and therefore HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>>>>>>>>   >>
>>>>>>>>>>   > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you disagree, explain why this is different.
>>>>>>>>>> In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is
>>>>>>>>>> different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional 
>>>>>>>>>> simulator
>>>>>>>>>> and subsequently running Y(X).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I may not have enough time left to change the subject and 
>>>>>>>>> endlessly go
>>>>>>>>> through anything but the exact point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You used to have enough time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is before the CAR T cell manufacturing process failed twice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which really means you need to abandon your fraudulent methods
>>>>>
>>>>> _DD()
>>>>> [00002133] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002134] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002136] 51         push ecx      ; make space for local
>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>> [00002141] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002144] 8945fc     mov [ebp-04],eax
>>>>> [00002147] 837dfc00   cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
>>>>> [0000214b] 7402       jz 0000214f
>>>>> [0000214d] ebfe       jmp 0000214d
>>>>> [0000214f] 8b45fc     mov eax,[ebp-04]
>>>>> [00002152] 8be5       mov esp,ebp
>>>>> [00002154] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002155] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002155]
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

It also shows that HHH will abort its emulation of the input, and thus 
it doesn't do a correct emulation (which is required to be complete by 
the actual definitions)

It also can be used to show that the actual behavior of DD is call an 
HHH that will abort its emulation and return 0 to it, so it will return, 
and thus HHH is just wrong.

Sorry, you are just proving that you think lying is acceptable behavior.