Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!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 23:06:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vqb70b$2lue4$5@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> <vqb6f4$2lue4$4@dont-email.me>
 <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@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 05:06:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="2816452"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19szCPA+MFDmpdjVOXiVu7H"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1en61vZlcaUejpne+3E+eD4+O4g=
In-Reply-To: <vqb6qr$2mueq$3@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4587

On 3/5/2025 11:03 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 3/5/2025 9:57 PM, dbush wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> I may not have enough time left to change the subject
> and endlessly go through anything but the exact point.
> 
> The purpose of these posts is so that my posthumous
> reviewers will understand.
> 

Last chance:

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).

Failure to do so in your next reply (or within one hour of your next 
post in this newsgroup) will be taken as your on-the-record admission 
that they mean the same thing, and that additionally you officially 
approve of replacing the former with the latter in any of your quotes to 
make it clear exactly what you're talking about.