Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly halt
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 07:08:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <v6r6b4$30qtt$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6e7va$c4sv$1@dont-email.me> <v6jig0$1ctoi$11@dont-email.me>
 <v6jkib$1e3jq$1@dont-email.me> <v6jpe5$1eul0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6jpqo$1e3jq$2@dont-email.me> <v6jqfg$1eul0$2@dont-email.me>
 <v6k6md$1h3a7$1@dont-email.me> <v6k9ef$1hicb$1@dont-email.me>
 <04b97cd4a405abead92368522fcf77070bb4fa55@i2pn2.org>
 <v6l24d$1oqjv$1@dont-email.me>
 <a267bfdf93c6fc179d09a3f62f25003f033aaff1@i2pn2.org>
 <v6m331$1tj30$7@dont-email.me>
 <6d43f24547a3b170ce6f7a99e30ec60dec589f79@i2pn2.org>
 <v6n8ob$24dmg$3@dont-email.me>
 <7f9b731b2367a2bcf2883278ee5265d30a8f82d6@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nau1$24jgn$2@dont-email.me>
 <744d42e4d9d67b49cb1844a2651cb0c350760f0c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6nc22$2501i$1@dont-email.me>
 <c784fa694b9d68f5ace1d07c9870050681268fdc@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ori5$2fuva$10@dont-email.me>
 <56314b3bac257d0fc228c26f3c8c5eec40a87215@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q4cj$2r7qt$1@dont-email.me>
 <1fbe0efc5b030be11df07a930754d90ce56525be@i2pn2.org>
 <v6q7vo$2rvqi$1@dont-email.me>
 <4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 14:08:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a53340e46817c86b736359d5ee28d54a";
	logging-data="3173309"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18L8VFv+c8e7KrksqVDVPkT"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9MSEEuX0EKo4//J8opLwE0+15Us=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4ed43f5b0a3bfc3833e62746b70cd3c3dafac1e9@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 5962

On 7/12/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 11 Jul 2024 22:30:00 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 7/11/2024 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/11/24 10:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/11/2024 9:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/11/24 10:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:21 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 8:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/24 9:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2024 8:27 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Tue, 09 Jul 2024 23:19:25 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/9/2024 11:01 PM, joes wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *DDD NEVER HALTS*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD ONLY calls HHH...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second line of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, DDD does if HHH(DDD) returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>> DDD correctly emulated by any pure function HHH that correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>> emulates 1 to ∞ lines of DDD can't make it to the second line
>>>>>>>>>>>> of DDD no matter what.
>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG, you don't seem to understand the difference between DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> and HHH's emualtion of it.
>>>>>>>> We stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language. By this measure when 1
>>>>>>>> to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by each pure function x86
>>>>>>>> emulator HHH (of the infinite set of every HHH that can possibly
>>>>>>>> exist) then DDD cannot possibly reach its own machine address of
>>>>>>>> 00002174 and halt.
>>>>>>> By the semantic of the x86 programming language, the only correct
>>>>>>> simulation is a FULL simulation
>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with the lie that when 1
>>>>>> step of DDD is correctly emulated that 0 steps of DDD are correctly
>>>>>> emulated.
>>>> When 1,2,3... ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH it is a lie
>>>> to say that this many instructions were not correctly emulated and you
>>>> know it.
>>> But only N instructions "correctly emulated" is NOT a CORRECT
>>> emulaition of the instructions of DDD/HHH
>> I didn't limit it to N. Is this your ADD? I say 1 to infinity steps !!!
> Please don't insult ADD people.

This does not say from 1 to 8 steps
when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated

When I say the same words 150 and Richard does not
see these words I have to know why this is.
My aim is effective communication. I can't fix
the issue unless I know what the issue it.

The two possibilities Richard's ADD, and Richard
is a Liar. If is is Richards's ADD then repeating
the same sentence a dozen times seems to help.

If Richard is being a liar then calling him a Liar
and telling him where this leads seems to help.

> You did talk of an HHH that only simulated a fixed number of steps.
> They do not provide a correct (full) simulation.

when 1 to ∞ steps of DDD are correctly emulated in
the infinite set of every HHH/DDD pair and no DDD
halts then we can say that DDD DOES NOT HALT.

Several dishonest reviewers tried to use the
https://jorynjenkins.com/hiding-the-pea/
shell game ruse to avoid talking about the HHH/DDD
pair that I was talking about for weeks and weeks.

To counter this I started talking about every element
of the infinite set of HHH/DDD pairs that can possibly
exist. That is what I am doing now.



> The only interesting case is infinitely many steps of a nonterminating
> input.
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer