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 15:28:29 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <vqd0hc$34ing$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>
 <3d74bde656131ddb2a431901b3a0aeeb71649e70@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9ao$2mueq$6@dont-email.me> <vqbp6h$2td95$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@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 21:28:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7e9a184460760c22e32d5c12ff9ace5a";
	logging-data="3295984"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NeN/aW4MXXzKz9IXufIUW"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qpyrDZ354EBu7Ci3RYW/cg274Nc=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqcvr3$34c3r$4@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6123

On 3/6/2025 3:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> 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 replacing the code of HHH with an unconditional simulator and 
> subsequently running HHH(DD)
> specifies recursive emulation that cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction BECAUSE IT SPECIFIES
> RECURSINVE EMULATION.
> 

Makes sense