Path: 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: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 20:10:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vqasm4$2lue4$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>
 <5e786c32c2dcc88be50183203781dcb6a5d8d046@i2pn2.org>
 <vq866t$23nt0$1@dont-email.me>
 <2002d599ebdfb7cd5a023881ab2faca9801b219d@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8l3d$29b9l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4426787ad065bfd0939e10b937f3b8b2798d0578@i2pn2.org>
 <vq8mam$29b9l$5@dont-email.me>
 <920b573567d204a5c792425b09097d79ee098fa5@i2pn2.org>
 <vq9lvn$2ei4j$3@dont-email.me>
 <4453bc0c1141c540852ea2223a7fedefc93f564c@i2pn2.org>
 <vqadoh$2ivg7$2@dont-email.me> <vqae74$2ivcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqag6q$2jief$1@dont-email.me> <vqagb7$2ivcn$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqakhi$2jief$3@dont-email.me> <vqalvr$2ivcn$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 02:10:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="2816452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ap2gT42NRlFawY+JEXkCr"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V9t/avTUy/gICdtfyLCrrhbr5aQ=
In-Reply-To: <vqaq2s$2lgq7$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 3/5/2025 7:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/5/2025 5:16 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/5/2025 5:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2025 3:39 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2025 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am Wed, 05 Mar 2025 08:10:00 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/5/25 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 11:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2025 5:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just show your stupidity, as DD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't HAVE its own emulator, and CAN'T
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know who or if it is being emulated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHich is the strawman, that you are too stupid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to recogines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will show that it is not straw-man after you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quit dodging that point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong order,
>>>>>>>>>>> I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY OTHER ORDER
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you CAN'T handle any other order, even
>>>>>>>>>> though logically requried, because you need to hide your
>>>>>>>>>> fraud.
>>>>>>>>> My proof requires a specific  prerequisite order. One
>>>>>>>>> cannot learn algebra before one has learned to count to
>>>>>>>>> ten. DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>> its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally. Is the
>>>>>>>>> first step of the mandatory prerequisite order of my proof
>>>>>>>> What is the next step?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* *its own
>>>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has taken two years to create this first step such that it is 
>>>>>>> the the simplest way to state the key element of the whole
>>>>>>> proof and make this element impossible to correctly refute.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EVERY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AWAY FROM THIS POINT IS
>>>>>>> DISHONEST.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before agreeing on an answer, it is first required to agree on
>>>>>> the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach* *its own
>>>>> "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>
>>>>> This is irrefutable. Every attempt to show otherwise has been a
>>>>> change of subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until we have mutual agreement on that key most important point
>>>>> upon which all other points depend this point will be repeated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if you say "there's a black cat in the kitchen" and I want to
>>>> know if there's a white dog in my living room, how is that in any
>>>> way useful?
>>>
>>> In other words 
>>
>> You'll be disappointed when you realize what you've been working on is 
>> the wrong thing.
> 
> Off topic, thus ignored.
> True(X) is required for righteousness.
> 

In other words, you know that what you're working on has nothing to do 
with the halting problem, but you don't care.