Path: 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 22:09:46 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <vpjfqb$1nreg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo6420$3mpmf$1@dont-email.me> <votn1l$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>
 <vpivtq$1fvqe$7@dont-email.me>
 <999ca12a3fa312214661d4e8d6a8ca26fe9eaf35@i2pn2.org>
 <vpj5lp$1hb0e$2@dont-email.me>
 <a30dc04b370dec57a88da4b0b357a535c8d037aa@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 05:09:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84b3281cc50da96d4f212543eabff5de";
	logging-data="1830352"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/SqcG8DQG/0Ek+qAUbclFZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sOPiQL0vnqvN49XAtZDGEozY04s=
In-Reply-To: <a30dc04b370dec57a88da4b0b357a535c8d037aa@i2pn2.org>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250224-8, 2/24/2025), Outbound message

On 2/24/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/24/25 8:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/24/2025 6:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/24/25 6:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What infinite loop?
>>>
>>
>> If an arbitrary decider is placed in any
>> infinite loop then IT WILL NOT TERMINATE
>> NO MATTER WTF ITS SUPPOSED TO DO.
> 
> Sure it will, an infinite number of times, once for each call to it.
> 

Joes did not seem to understand that.

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