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: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 22:31:24 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@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> <vqasm4$2lue4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb43k$2mueq$1@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 04:31:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="2816452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18URSVjQsAmLtYG9BizsEJR"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JbLFNOU/y9CbHQPM+GTz5fOsp48=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqb43k$2mueq$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7285

On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> In other words I WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY BULLSHIT DEFLECTION.
> You have proven that you know these things pretty well SO QUIT THE SHIT!
> 

You want people to accept that HHH(DD) does in fact report that changing 
the code of HHH to an unconditional simulator and running HHH(DD) will 
not halt.

Then you'll say "when we apply that to the Linz proof..." at which point 
we say it doesn't apply because the halting problem is about reporting 
what turing machines aka algorithms do when executed directly.

Like I said, you're telling everyone there's a black cat in the kitchen, 
but no one cares because we want to know if there's a white dog in the 
living room.

You have two choices: admit that your work has nothing to do with the 
halting problem, or admit your work concludes that no natural number is 
greater than 10.  Either way, you lose.