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 22:57:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@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> <vqb4ub$2lue4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 04:57:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="2816452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lHzkgus3SebQZz0IttY1e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rF5zyPJg+JfXjwwIPsvaZ8pSfzg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqb683$2mueq$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3544

On 3/5/2025 10:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/5/2025 9:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 3/5/2025 10:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2025 7:10 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.

In other words, replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional 
simulator and subsequently running HHH(DD) does not halt, which you 
previously agreed is correct:

On 2/22/2025 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
 > On 2/22/2025 11:10 AM, dbush wrote:
 >> On 2/22/2025 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
 >>> The first point is DD correctly simulated by HHH cannot
 >>> possibly terminate normally by reaching its own "return"
 >>> instruction.
 >>
 >> In other words, if the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional 
simulator then it can be shown that DD is non-halting and therefore 
HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
 >>
 >
 > Wow finally someone that totally gets it.


If you disagree, explain why this is different.

In particular, give an example where X correctly emulated by Y is 
different from replacing the code of Y with an unconditional simulator 
and subsequently running Y(X).