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 22:03:40 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <f667993f66e38ce7610b933bbbf13508dfee1e23@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> <vqhm4q$6fo8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqhs03$6vdc$5@dont-email.me> <vqig6a$bcd0$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqihd5$bcso$2@dont-email.me> <vqii7c$bcd0$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:03:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3522651"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vqiju2$bcso$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4652
Lines: 71

On 3/8/25 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/8/2025 5:01 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/8/2025 5:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2025 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:01 AM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 9:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/8/2025 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-03-07 15:11:53 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The source code contains a finite sequence of truth preserving 
>>>>>> steps between axioms and a statement?
>>>>>
>>>>> The source code 100% completely specifies every single detail
>>>>> of exactly what it does on each specific input.
>>>>> Saying that it does not do this is counter-factual.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the source code does not meet the definition of a 
>>>> proof, so your claim is false.
>>>
>>> Dumb Bunny:
>>> *Proof[0] is anything that shows that X is necessarily true*
>>> *and thus impossibly false*
>>>
>>> The source-code in Halt7.c combined with the input to HHH
>>> conclusively proves every detail of the behavior of HHH on
>>> this input. Disagreeing this is either foolish or dishonest.
>>>
>>
>> A proof is a finite sequence of truth preserving steps between the 
>> axioms of a system and a true statement that show the statement is true.
>>
> 
> Proof[math] tries unsuccessfully to inherit from proof[0].
> I am stipulating that I have always been referring to proof[0].

And I am pointing out that it IS the same, it is just that you don't 
understand that "Show" implies FINITE.

You are just proving your stupidity by repeating your disproved claim.

> 
> If you cannot understand the Halt7.c conclusively proves[0]
> the actual behavior of HHH(DD) this is merely your lack of
> understanding and nothing more.
> 
> 

Sure I can understand what it does, as Halt7.c shows that the behavior 
of the input is to HALT since that is what DD will do when main calls it.

That you don't undetstand the meaning of the words your are using, or 
are intentionally using the wrong ones, doesn't make you right, just 
ether stupid or a liar.

The fact you keep on saying I am wrong, but can never actually explain 
what I am saying is wrong, only repeat your vague claims shows that you 
have nothing to back your claims.

Your problem is if you try to go into more details, you know that your 
LIES become too obvious.