Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 17:38:33 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vpivtq$1fvqe$7@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <vote0u$nf28$1@dont-email.me>
 <3b8a5f4be53047b2a6c03f9678d0253e137d3c40@i2pn2.org>
 <votn1l$pb7c$1@dont-email.me>
 <5cd9bc55c484f10efd7818ecadf169a11fcc58e1@i2pn2.org>
 <votq5o$ppgs$1@dont-email.me> <vouu57$12hqt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vp1jkg$1kstl$1@dont-email.me> <vp1qp1$1m05h$2@dont-email.me>
 <vp46l6$26r1n$1@dont-email.me> <vp5t55$2gt2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp6pmb$2opvi$1@dont-email.me> <vp8700$30tdq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vp8att$1cec$1@news.muc.de> <vp8h5n$32ifn$1@dont-email.me>
 <39c74e68a47f768d432f5528493b6db9b946ea83@i2pn2.org>
 <vpcvc7$irt$6@dont-email.me>
 <65d495d5d1da61e1bff8426a80fb7d6b046a7f71@i2pn2.org>
 <vpdr2j$6bqs$2@dont-email.me> <vpe1s3$7gnd$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpfm3h$j7qb$2@dont-email.me>
 <c267c2607cac84a040ecd629ef62cb11561f64e4@i2pn2.org>
 <vpgpfe$p9vl$2@dont-email.me>
 <4a546b429e06c8c8a56ff3dcbf638c5c4fd0be91@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:38:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5f1bdbe2bf9fd53383ef617592ba422f";
	logging-data="1572686"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jaZtOqoFtgT9SqkuyczhZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tkZ5dUjh9VE0L17UXeIwUxS/Ex0=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <4a546b429e06c8c8a56ff3dcbf638c5c4fd0be91@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250224-8, 2/24/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5783

On 2/24/2025 3:32 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:36:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>> On 2/23/2025 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/23/25 12:32 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2025 8:41 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/25 11:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2025 5:05 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:25:27 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 4:38 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/20/2025 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-20 00:31:33 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have given everyone here all of the complete source code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a few years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> True but irrelevant. OP did not specify that HHH means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular code.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Every post that I have been talking about for two or more
>>>>>>>>>>>> years has referred to variations of that same code.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.  It would be a relief if you could move on to posting
>>>>>>>>>>> something new and fresh.
>>>>>>>>>> As soon as people fully address rather than endlessly dodge my
>>>>>>>>>> key points I will be done.
>>>>>>>>> Honestly, you're gonna die first, one way or the other.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's start with a root point.
>>>>>>>>>> All of the other points validate this root point.
>>>>>>>>>> *Simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly determines*
>>>>>>>>>> *the non-halt status of DD*
>>>>>>>>> Since DD halts, that's dead in the water.
>>>>>>>> Despicably intentionally dishonest attempts at the straw-man
>>>>>>>> deception aside:
>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally
>>>>>>>> by reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>>>>> Only because that statement is based on a false premise.
>>>>>>> Since HHH doesn't correctly simulate its input, your statement is
>>>>>>> just a fabrication of your imagination.
>>>>>> *Correct simulation means emulates the machine code as specified*
>>>>>> It cannot mean imagining a different sequence than the one that the
>>>>>> machine code specifies. That most people here are clueless about x86
>>>>>> machine code is far less than no rebuttal at all.
>>>>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly
>>>>>> return to the emulator, conclusively proving that
>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly terminate normally by
>>>>>> reaching its own "return" instruction.
>>>>>> Assuming that it does return is simply stupid.
>>>>> Similarly, when no_numbers_greater_than_10 emulated by F calls F(0)
>>>>> this call cannot possibly return to the emulator, conclusively
>>>>> proving that
>>>> Not true. The stack eventually unwinds after ten emulations.
>>> Just like a CORRECT emulation of DD would if the HHH doing the
>>> emulation didn't abort (but doing it by the hypothetical of NOT
>>> changing the HHH that DD calls, since that must be the original HHH).
>>> Your problem is you have lied to yourself about what is a "correct
>>> emulation"
>> In other words you "believe" that the call from DD to HHH(DD) returns
>> when the above DD is emulated by HHH.
>> This is proven to be counter-factual by anyone that understands the
>> above code.
> The code is wrong. The call to HHH should return, because we know that
> HHH is a decider. You incorrectly turn off the abort check.
> 

When you put code in an infinite loop then this code DOES NOT TERMINATE
NO MATTER WTF IT "SHOULD" DO.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer