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: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:00:23 -0500
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <fcb35e8f9e81e513ae37369bc224f02a43d0c4e4@i2pn2.org>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
 <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
 <vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@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>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me>
 <3e49cecf2307c385ab65edcfb375b8ad54480402@i2pn2.org>
 <vqdnf6$380b4$2@dont-email.me>
 <76a4db051a2d8043a7cafd46f5dfbdfdb005ca96@i2pn2.org>
 <vqf119$3j68u$1@dont-email.me> <vqf2i6$3j47v$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqf3e6$3j68u$9@dont-email.me> <vqf3ks$3j1hs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqg5bk$3qe49$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:00:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3366314"; 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: <vqg5bk$3qe49$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7331
Lines: 120

On 3/7/25 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/7/2025 9:33 AM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/7/2025 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2025 9:15 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 07.mrt.2025 om 15:49 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 3/7/2025 2:02 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:59:49 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/6/25 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logically requried, because you need to hide your fraud.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ten. DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the next step?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the the simplest way to state the key element of the whole 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and make this element impossible to correctly refute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT IS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISHONEST.
>>>>>> So what's the next step?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct 
>>>>>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY 
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>> that matters is the behavior of the directly executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>> program whose
>>>>>>>>>>>> description is provided.
>>>>>>>>>>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the basis of 
>>>>>>>>>>> what its
>>>>>>>>>>> finite string INPUT specifies.
>>>>>> Yes, that is the directly executed program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>> No, DD doesn't specify anything about what is to simulate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the 
>>>>>>>>>> simulation up to
>>>>>>>>>> the end. No more, no less.
>>>>>>>>>> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure 
>>>>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>> The finite string of DD correctly emulated by HHH specifies 
>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>> emulation that cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction 
>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE
>>>>>>>>> IT SPECIFIES RECURSINVE EMULATION.
>>>>>> No, HHH aborts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the HHH that decides are returns can't be that HHH, so the 
>>>>>>>> DD given
>>>>>>>> to that HHH doesn't call the correctly emulating HHH, so you whole
>>>>>>>> argument is shown to be the fraud you have admitted to.
>>>>>>> That seems to be a little incoherent so I cannot tell what you are
>>>>>>> saying yet you are at least attempting to use reasoning.
>>>>>>> I am just saying what the actual x86 machine code actually specifies
>>>>>>> therefore any rebuttal is necessarily incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the actual code of DD specifies that it halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>> *Straw-man deception*
>>>>>
>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
>>>>> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
>>>>> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
>>>>>
>>>> Strawman. HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, so HHH fails to 
>>>> do a compete simulation.
>>>
>>> Simulating termination analyzer HHH 
>>
>> So you're saying it maps the halting function?
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>> directly
>>
>>
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally
> because DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive emulation.
> 
> 

And the HHH that correctly emulated the DD can't possibly answer, just 
showing that your premise is just a frauc.

Of course, you have admitted that, since you have stated that you are 
using non-standard definition for many of the core definition of the 
system, so you aren't actually working in the system, but just puting 
forward a FRAUD.

Sorry, you have publically admitted the needed evidence, and doomed your 
theories. (as well, it seems, as your soul)