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 22:03:46 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <b6a54606a84040aea1f8635aa6713a4b1a9d381d@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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>
 <bb66fe73f9d7a84cdc35912f0fb01b3896583963@i2pn2.org>
 <vqf3b6$3j68u$8@dont-email.me> <vqh1d1$2msm$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhkmd$5r7r$6@dont-email.me>
 <4dc770ab18f1a991f8797cbb97199126d7f9795c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqikuc$bcso$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:03:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3522651"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqikuc$bcso$6@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8278
Lines: 157

On 3/8/25 6:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 5:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 3/8/25 9:37 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:28:38 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 6:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/25 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>
>>>>> You could show the machine-address by machine-address
>>>>> correct execution trace if i was wrong. You only
>>>>> dodge this because you k ow that I am correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and your problem is still that you are trying to hold to you 
>>>>>> admitted FRAUD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Using ad hominem instead of reasoning makes you
>>>>> look very foolish.
>>>>
>>>> No ad hominem above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Persistently falling go show the line-by-line
>>> execution trace of the correct emulation that
>>> would prove that the emulation by HHH is incorrect
>>>
>>> BECAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT
>>> THE EXECUTION TRACE BY HHH IS CORRECT!!!
>>>
>>
>> The line-by-line emulation of the equivalemt program has been posted, 
>> and was even posted by you.
>>
> 
> HHH(DD) is not equivalent to HHH1(DD) and you know that
> you are lying about this because you know that with
> HHH(DD) DD calls its own emulator in recursive emulation
> and with HHH1(DD) DD DOES NOT CALL HHH1.

Right, but the behavior of the DD that they both look at is.

HHH aborts and gets the wrong answer.

HHH1 emulates the input to the end, and get the right answer.

> 
> Maybe I should contact your pastor and tell him
> that you are lying? I am concerned for your soul.
> 
> 

I wouldn't worry about my soul, I would think about your own.

The fact that your whole argument is based on an admitted FRAUD that you 
are changing definitions of core terms-of-art just proves you don't know 
what you are doing,

Remember, THE DEFIHNITION of the behavior a Halt Decider / Termination 
Analyzer is to look at is the behavior of the machine described by the 
input when it is actually run.

You are NOT allowed to change that without committng FRAUD.

IF you want to try to claim otherwise, you need to show the reliable 
sources that allow it. GOOD LUCK.

All you are doing is proving that you are nothing but an ignorant fraud 
that thinks lying is how to prove something.

Exactly what you claim you are fighting, because it seems you are 
nothing but a damned hypocrite.