Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DDD emulated by HHH --- (does not refer to prior posts)
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:24:01 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <vbju02$1sml7$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vajdta$2qe9s$1@dont-email.me> <vak3a0$2teq9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vakhnf$302rl$2@dont-email.me> <vamk7l$3d7ki$1@dont-email.me>
 <van3v7$3f6c0$5@dont-email.me> <vap7b1$3sobs$1@dont-email.me>
 <vapvbc$3vumk$5@dont-email.me>
 <e10aee5b3ede543da42ba76ac4d7f0a0fe762695@i2pn2.org>
 <vasmn8$hmpd$1@dont-email.me> <vaumg9$ut9s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vav0r9$10jsm$1@dont-email.me> <vavb4a$11uqn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vavca1$1283f$1@dont-email.me> <vave2b$11uqn$7@dont-email.me>
 <vavfoi$12m8t$4@dont-email.me> <vb1hq0$1fgj7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb4enb$2rs5t$3@dont-email.me> <vb6iop$39hrf$1@dont-email.me>
 <vb74m3$3b4ub$11@dont-email.me> <vbel4p$pko5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbeoik$punj$2@dont-email.me> <vbh116$19c8m$1@dont-email.me>
 <vbhlpj$1c7u5$8@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2024 12:24:03 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2b2b9cf2c98e7ddf486ca82525f24772";
	logging-data="1989287"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19G+my+gzDdrzohcArNgitc"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pTRcnAfspSighJNDn2DPl7u9yvE=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vbhlpj$1c7u5$8@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4979

Op 07.sep.2024 om 15:51 schreef olcott:
> On 9/7/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-09-06 11:20:52 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2024 5:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-09-03 13:58:27 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>> [00002172] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002173] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
>>>>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>> [0000217f] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>> [00002182] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>> [00002183] c3         ret
>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone that is not dumber than a box of rocks can tell
>>>>> that machine address 0000217f is unreachable for every
>>>>> DDD emulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
>>>>> x86 language where HHH emulates itself emulating DDD.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone who really knows either x86 assembly or machine langage or
>>>> C can see that the machine address 217f is unreachachable only if
>>>> the program at 000015d2, named HHH, does not return.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not exactly true. There is a directly executed HHH
>>> that always returns and a DDD emulated by HHH that calls
>>> an emulated HHH that never returns.
>>
>> There is only one DDD. The emulated DDD is the same as the directly
>> executed DDD. If HHH emulates someting else then that is not DDD.
>>
> 
> I have conclusively proven that DDD, DD, D, PP and P
> do have different behavior within pathological relationships
> than outside of pathological relationships at least 1000
> times in the last three years.

No, olcott has proven many times that HHH cannot possibly simulate 
itself correctly up to the end, but he is unable to accept the result of 
his own proofs.
The simulation fails to complete, the abort is premature and an 
incorrect decision is made from the incomplete simulation.

> 
> Since assuming away the pathological relationship that does
> indeed exist is so ridiculously stupid I initially called
> people despicable lying bastards for doing this.

If the 'pathological relationship' is that D contradicts H, then it is 
clear that the simulation does not even reach the pathological part of 
the program. Therefore, there is no relation with the pathological part 
of D.
If the 'pathological relationship' is that H, or HHH, must simulate 
itself, then it is clear that D, or DDD does not play a role in it.

        int main() {
          return HHH(main);
        }

This shows that the problem for an incorrect simulation is within HHH 
itself.
HHH halts, but decides that it does not halt.
Olcott is unable to accept the truth of his own proof.
HHH cannot possible simulate itself correctly up to the end.

> 
> Now it seems more like people have been so deeply indoctrinated
> with the "received view" that you can smack them in the face with
> the truth so hard that it will knock them down and they never
> notice that you said a single word.
> 

Olcott has been so deeply indoctrinated by himself, that he is unable to 
accept his own proofs. His brain seems to be stuck in repeating false 
claims, without evidence.