Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.quux.org!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:50:11 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e5dd55362a3fe659c6edf33cf049573b81c9d189@i2pn2.org>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp8att$1cec$1@news.muc.de> <vp8h5n$32ifn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org>
 <vpcvc7$irt$6@dont-email.me>
 <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org>
 <vpdr2j$6bqs$2@dont-email.me>
 <e5f0fd13a74910fe5c86cf90c2b7227e0f1c53b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfn00$j7qb$7@dont-email.me>
 <24ac3db22d70b59ed613e4291e45f8a420c30377@i2pn2.org>
 <vpghb8$o4p7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 02:50:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1493938"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vpghb8$o4p7$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 2/23/25 8:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 2/23/2025 12:21 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sun, 23 Feb 2025 11:47:44 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 2/23/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:45:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source code for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few years
>>>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
>>>>>>>>>>>> particular code.
>>>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more years
>>>>>>>>>>> has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting
>>>>>>>>>> something new and fresh.
>>>>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my key
>>>>>>>>> points I will be done.
>>>>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's start with a root point.
>>>>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point.
>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
>>>>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD*
>>>>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.
>>>>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man
>>>>>>> deception aside:
>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally by
>>>>>>> reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
>>>>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is
>>>>>> just a fabrication of your imagination.
>>>>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified* It
>>>>> cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the
>>>>> machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about x86
>>>>> machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>> It's not about the machine code. The machine code of HHH specifies a
>>>> sequence where simulation is aborted, but you simulate the non-input of
>>>> a non-aborting HHH. This is not the HHH that does the simulation.
>>>>
>>>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly return
>>>>> to the emulator, conclusively proving that
>>>> That's bad. A decider like HHH is supposed to return.
>>> When a decider itself is called in an infinite loop then it cannot
>>> possibly terminate unless a version of itself its emulating this
>>> instance of itself.
>>> In this case the infinite loop instance MUST BE ABORTED.
>> A decider that aborts doesn't need to be aborted.
>>
>>> When DD is correctly simulated by HHH according to the behavior that the
>>> above machine code specifies then the call from DD to HHH(DD) cannot
>>> possibly return making it impossible for DD emulated by HHH to terminate
>>> normally.
>> If HHH doesn't return, it is not a decider.
>>
> 
> I am only talking about termination analyzers.
> Any actual code that is invoked in an actual
> infinite loop will not terminate no matter what.
> If anyone assumes otherwise they are clueless.
> 
> 

Wrong, since the DEFINITION of a termination analyser is about the 
behavior of the PROGRAM that is given as the input, and when we just run 
DD it will terminate noramally, then HHH is just incorrect.

The problem is that since HHH is DEFINED by its code, and that code says 
it WILL abort its emulation of DD and return to its caller, it is 
incorrect of HHH to assume something different, and think that the code 
for the HHH that is actually there will never abort.

Your problem is you just lie to yourself about what it needs to do, 
because you are so stupid you beleive your own lies, even in the face of 
the truth being pointed out, because you have decide to just ignore the 
truth since you are nothing but a pathological liar.