Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:45:19 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ef19c91a18848265dc50ac443d4ef9b3601e1d71@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@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> <vqhoej$64cl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqhvrs$8e1u$1@dont-email.me> <vqjlke$l8rl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqk41p$o4oh$1@dont-email.me> <vqmaik$18ng8$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqmrbt$1ckgi$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:45:20 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3793041"; 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: <vqmrbt$1ckgi$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4998
Lines: 90

On 3/10/25 10:01 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/10/2025 4:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 09.mrt.2025 om 14:11 schreef olcott:
>>> On 3/9/2025 4:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 18:47 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:41 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>> Op 08.mrt.2025 om 15:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _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.
>>>
>>
>> Why repeating things we agree with? We agree that HHH correctly 
>> reports that it cannot possibly complete the simulation to its end.
> 
> You have despicably changed my words.
> It never has been any failure of HHH.
> It has always been that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive
> emulation thus specifying that it cannot possible reach
> its own final state and terminate normally.
> 
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own "return" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.

But only if HHH actually does the complete emulation.

If HHH aborts and returns, as you otherwhere describe it, then it 
doesn't do a correct emulation, so your statement is null as that isn't 
the behavior of *THE* HHH in the system but a correct emulation of that 
input by an actually correct emulator would.

> 
> If HHH can see the same pattern that every competent
> programmer sees then HHH does not need to emulate DD
> more than twice to know that HHH cannot possibly reach
> its own final state and terminate normally.

Except then it violates its presumption of itself.



> 
> Perhaps you are not a competent programmer.
> 
> 

The problem is you are not an honest logitian, as you think you are make 
argiuments with lying premises.

You have admitted to the use of FRAUD in your logic, and now you show 
you include unsound logic based on lies.