Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 20:52:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <vq8apd$24a88$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq5qqc$1j128$2@dont-email.me> <vq6g9l$1ptg9$2@dont-email.me>
 <vq722k$1tapm$1@dont-email.me> <vq751g$1t7oc$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq78ni$1u8bl$3@dont-email.me>
 <98ddbfe223ae1a4b4cc3bf233d5f7ed06d56ff76@i2pn2.org>
 <vq7jqg$20fes$2@dont-email.me> <vq7kis$1sgf7$5@dont-email.me>
 <vq7m0e$20fes$3@dont-email.me> <vq7mv8$1sgf7$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 02:52:45 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cc0bffe0b083240e269e1b5bec2a28a8";
	logging-data="2238728"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX190Up/IOxGLHOZgIz9tHnMI"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0amBsV8wOYzOfVAu4F4IPpABvFA=
In-Reply-To: <vq7mv8$1sgf7$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5036

On 3/4/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 3/4/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/4/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2025 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2025 12:44 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Tue, 04 Mar 2025 10:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
>>>>>>>>>> instruction and terminate normally.
>>>>>>>>> I wonder why Olcott keeps repeating that HHH fails to reach the 
>>>>>>>>> 'ret'
>>>>>>>>> instruction, where the direct execution or world-class simulators
>>>>>>>>> have no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction of exactly the same
>>>>>>>>> finite string as input.
>>>>>>>> The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of exactly 
>>>>>>>> how DD
>>>>>>>> correctly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret" instruction.
>>>>>>> And that is exactly what Olcott does not show.
>>>>>> Likewise I never attempt to show exactly how all squares are round.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, 
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> the direct execution and some world-class simulators have no 
>>>>>>> problem to
>>>>>>> reach it.
>>>>>> DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
>>>>>> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by HHH1.
>>>>>> DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.
>>>>
>>>>> DD always calls HHH.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thus only has a pathological relationship that changes its
>>>> behavior when the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional 
>>>> simulator and HHH(DD) is run
>>>
>>> Well of course the behavior changes if you change the code
>>
>> DD is the exact same sequence of machine code bytes
>> executed in three different execution contexts.
> 
> That would mean that no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the exact same 
> sequence of machine code bytes executed in different execution contexts, 
> and no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F can't reach its own "ret" 
> instruction, therefore no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly reported 
> as non-halting, and because it doesn't halt we can conclude that there 
> is no natural number greater than 10.
> 
> Agreed?  If not, explain why the above is wrong.  Failure to do so, 
> either in your next response to this message or within 1 hour of your 
> next post in this newsgroup, will be taken as your on-the-record 
> admission that the above is correct and that you therefore believe that 
> no natural number exists that is greater than 10.
> 

Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this 
newsgroup:

On 3/4/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
 >
 > It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using
 > the straw-man deception to change the subject away from:
 >
 > DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
 > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

And more than one hour has passed since this posting and he has not 
responded to this post.

He has therefore satisfied the requirements listed above for admitting 
the above asserted statement is correct.

Therefore:

Let The Record Show:

That Peter Olcott has officially admitted:

That no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F can't reach its own "ret" 
instruction, therefore no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly reported
as non-halting, and because it doesn't halt we can conclude that there
is no natural number greater than 10.

And that he believes the above to be TRUE.