Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: immibis <news@immibis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in
 the last 3 years
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:36:54 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <v3g49m$2vmuc$3@dont-email.me>
References: <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de>
 <87y17smqnq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v37sap$18mfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3elpv$2mjca$1@dont-email.me> <v3fdif$2r6gg$1@dont-email.me>
 <v3fe4u$2r8b7$1@dont-email.me> <v3ffk9$2rh8f$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3fr8b$2o13h$10@i2pn2.org> <v3fugb$2ulbk$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 23:36:54 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d7768fc7c60e5dabfd7a19d675cbc7e5";
	logging-data="3136460"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19M6zndtHUQ+PMnyiOaPsTn"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CS4Lin/PoWZHgNcQsBRbb1gpQJ4=
In-Reply-To: <v3fugb$2ulbk$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2495

On 1/06/24 21:58, olcott wrote:
> On 6/1/2024 2:02 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 01 Jun 2024 10:44:09 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> On 6/1/2024 10:18 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 01.jun.2024 om 17:09 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 6/1/2024 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-29 18:31:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Similarly:
>>>>
>>>> Because HH correctly simulated by HH remains stuck in recursive
>>>> simulation for 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation this conclusively
>>>> proves that it is correct to reject HH as non-halting no matter what
>>>> the behavior of the directly executed HH(DD,DD) is.
>>>
>>> I am going to simply ignore your disingenuous replies.
>>> HH(DD,DD) halts as an empirical fact.
>> That means it returns, right? Making D proceed past line 4.
>>
> 
> HH(DD,DD) halts
> DD correctly simulated by HH DOES NOT HALT
> 
> I can say it 10,000 more times and it never changes
> it remains a verified fact.
> 
> 

When HH(DD,DD) halts, what number does it return?