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: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 15:24:33 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b5ab9ec6fbfc407f05d4b34e5f08894e30785ff0@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <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$3@dont-email.me> <vqjnff$lo7u$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqk4b5$o4oh$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:24:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3618651"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vqk4b5$o4oh$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8919
Lines: 165

On 3/9/25 9:16 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/9/2025 4:36 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-03-08 14:09:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, it does not. It does not even specify any claim. It only specifies
>> a behavior, and much of it only inplicitly. A proof ends with the
>> sentence that is proven but the source code does not. Unless you only
>> want to clalim tnat }.
>>
> 
> _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]

Which is not a proper program, as the contents of 000015c3 have not be 
specified, so it can not be emulated past the call to there.

> 
> When we assume that HHH emulates N steps of DD then

Which if N is more than 5, it is a lie.

> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

Since DD can not be correctly emulated, your statment is meaningless.

> 
> I am not going to address any other point until this
> point is fully understood because the other points
> cannot be understood until this one is understood.
> 

Your problem is you have ADMITTED that you whole argument is just a 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========