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: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid
 rebuttals ---PSR---
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:16:35 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <vqcvr3$34c3r$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>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$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 21:16:36 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="566f246a75be3c19f962b78108481d73";
	logging-data="3289211"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gj2O04JO/NmRSbrmH1sm9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v5Koc5Ob4vsDALMu3b3ZtvLn/b4=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250306-6, 3/6/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6136

On 3/6/2025 3:17 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 06.mrt.2025 om 05:46 schreef olcott:
>> On 3/5/2025 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/5/25 4:03 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.
>>>
>>> Which is the problem, since you don't have the correct question.
>>>
>>> If HHH is a Halt Decider / Termination analyzer, the ONLY behavior 
>>> that matters is the behavior of the directly executed program whose 
>>> description is provided.
>>>
>>
>> That is a stupid thing to say.
>> HHH computes the mapping to a return value on the
>> basis of what its finite string INPUT specifies.
>>
>> THIS IS WHAT IT SPECIFIES
>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
> Yes, that is what HHH reports: I cannot complete the simulation up to 
> the end. No more, no less.
> There are easier ways to make a program to report the failure of a 
> simulation.

The finite string of DD correctly emulated by HHH
specifies recursive emulation that cannot possibly
reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES
RECURSINVE EMULATION.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer