Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 19:10:57 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <cb1e229a528b3f3e6662a7e85651d9132a8afd97@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me> <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
 <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
 <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org>
 <v6r6b4$30qtt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:10:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3075350"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6r6b4$30qtt$1@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7927
Lines: 142

On 7/12/24 8:08 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/12/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>> and HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1
>>>>>>>>> to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86
>>>>>>>>> emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>>> exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of
>>>>>>>>> 00002174 and halt.
>>>>>>>> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct
>>>>>>>> simulation is a FULL simulation
>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1
>>>>>>> step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>>>> emulated.
>>>>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie
>>>>> to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you
>>>>> know it.
>>>> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
>>>> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH
>>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
>> Please don't insult ADD people.
> 
> This does not say from 1 to 8 steps
> when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated

Which, the way you are now describing it, only happens for the HHH that 
never aborts.

But, for you claims, you ALSO mean that 1 to ∞ steps also includes all 
the HHH that only do a finite number of steps and then abort.

Thus, you are trying to lie by the method of changing meaning.

> 
> When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not
> see these words I have to know why this is.
> My aim is effective communication. I can't fix
> the issue unless I know what the issue it.
> 

No, when you try to use the same words with two different meanings you 
are just lying.


> The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard
> is a Liar. If is is Richards's ADD then repeating
> the same sentence a dozen times seems to help.

No, Peter Olcott is just a liar by using double-speak, truying to have 
his words mean two different things at the same time.

> 
> If Richard is being a liar then calling him a Liar
> and telling him where this leads seems to help.

But since I am not lying, but just pointing out YOUR lies, you are just 
furthering you own lies.

> 
>> You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
>> They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.
> 
> when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in
> the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD
> halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT HALT.

And by saying "NO DDD", that shows that you actually means the DDD that 
are simulated for just 1 step, for just 2 steps, for just 3 steps, and 
so on, which means you claim that you only meant the infinte number of 
steps is just a LIE. and that

> 
> Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
> https://jorynjenkins.com/hiding-the-pea/
> shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD
> pair that I was talking about for weeks and weeks.

No YOU are plying the shell game by changing the meaning of you words 
sometimes even mid-sentence.

WHICH HHH/DDD pair are you ACTUALLY talking about?

The one HHH with its DDD that you claim main calls and gets the 
"correct" answer (that is actually wrong). That ONE HHH being the one in 
your code repositiory.

The ine HHH with its DDD that never aborts, and thus never answers, and 
is the ONLY DDD that never returns.

One of the "infinite set" of HHH/DDD pairs that emulates the input for 
only a finite number of steps, and then claim that since then they 
haven't reached the final state, and that OTHER HHH (the one that 
doesn't abort) showed that ITS DDD (the one based on the OTHER HHH, that 
doesn't abort) would never halt, that it can claim that ITS DDD (which 
is different from the above, since it is paired to a different HHH, one 
that does abort) would act the same.

NONE of those HHH ever correctly answer about the DDD that they were 
given (that has been pair to THEM).

And all you arguments are just lies trying to play the shell game.

You will find out soon enough about the results of your life of lies.

> 
> To counter this I started talking about every element
> of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly
> exist. That is what I am doing now.
> 
> 
> 
>> The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating
>> input.
>>
>