Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vqc7ir$302qp$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

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: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:22:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 100
Message-ID: <vqc7ir$302qp$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> <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> <vqb70b$2lue4$5@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 14:22:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="3148633"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QkLTLEfYc1N071ZNozjIB"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C1W0bAIFFp189xIOjxhP2IvTYSM=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqb70b$2lue4$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5770

On 3/5/2025 11:06 PM, dbush wrote:
> 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.
> 

Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this 
newsgroup after the above quoted message:

On 3/5/2025 11:41 PM, olcott wrote:
 > No matter WTF HHH is DD cannot possibly reach its "ret"
 > instruction and terminate normally when correctly emulated by HHH.
 > Either this is over your head or you are a liar. There is
 > no third choice.

And has not responded to the quoted message above more than 8 hours 
after he made the above post.

He has therefore satisfied the requirements stated above for admission 
of the given statement.  So:

Let The Record Show:

That Peter Olcott:

Has admitted that the following statement (Statement 1):

DD correctly simulated by HHH

Is exactly equivalent to the following statement (Statement 2):

Replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
subsequently running HHH(DD)

And has given his official permission to anyone responding to his 
messages to replace Statement 1 with Statement 2 in any of his quoted 
messages for the purposes of making it clear what he is claiming