Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD specifies non-terminating behavior to HHH ---USPTO
 Incorporation by reference --- despicable dishonesty
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:02:21 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vpk4fh$1sv7n$2@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$2@dont-email.me>
 <e5f0fd13a74910fe5c86cf90c2b7227e0f1c53b8@i2pn2.org>
 <vpfn00$j7qb$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:02:26 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="92d2aaced43ec798e861d918300ef76c";
	logging-data="1998071"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198lFyFDuK3NJAz/5lItjRU"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qjpvBx0I/R+aPU3CeKKBIvaSphc=
In-Reply-To: <vpfn00$j7qb$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB
Bytes: 5277

Op 23.feb.2025 om 18:47 schreef olcott:
> On 2/23/2025 5:52 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:45:06 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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.
>> It's not about the machine code. The machine code of HHH specifies a
>> sequence where simulation is aborted, but you simulate the non-input
>> of a non-aborting HHH. This is not the HHH that does the simulation.
>>
>>> When DD emulated by HHH calls HHH(DD) this call cannot possibly return
>>> to the emulator, conclusively proving that
>> That's bad. A decider like HHH is supposed to return.
>>
> 
> When a decider itself is called in an infinite loop
> then it cannot possibly terminate unless a version
> of itself its emulating this instance of itself.
Olcott is dreaming of an infinite loop again. There is no infinite loop. 
The direct execution of the program halts, proving that there is no 
infinite loop, no infinite recursion and no infinite recursive 
simulation. The problem with Olcott's simulator is that as soon as it 
sees one recursion, it thinks that it is an infinite recursion.
That is incorrect. This error makes the program a halting program. 
Correcting this error will not help, because Olcott is trying to do the 
logically impossible. Just as every attempt to draw a square circle will 
have an error and fixing that error only introduces another error. 
Similarly every attempt to make HHH correctly simulate itself will 
always have an error, because it is not logically possible for HHH to 
correctly simulate itself.