Path: ...!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 20:54:24 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <vqdn50$380b4$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>
 <500045f9223c5ab455ca73a046d61ddd5122db2e@i2pn2.org>
 <vqb9fi$2mueq$7@dont-email.me>
 <7c141f3bbc815bd533b7f7cb62fccd68c7297b1b@i2pn2.org>
 <vqd35l$34sev$2@dont-email.me>
 <9de4f5fb186e935ff0a10420c69e919cdff3da64@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 03:54:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="37f702c46a2fdca1e959530ddf954f17";
	logging-data="3408228"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lBZWGkX3AyaR37GwBLmTp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:abcSBTd+nZr4mmOCxHJl+XBs4LY=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250306-6, 3/6/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <9de4f5fb186e935ff0a10420c69e919cdff3da64@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6940

On 3/6/2025 6:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/25 4:13 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/6/2025 6:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 3/5/25 11:48 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2025 5:39 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/25 4:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2025 3:03 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
>>>>>> *its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and thus any HHH that does a correct emulation can not 
>>>>> return to its caller, 
>>>>
>>>> We have been over this point too many times you are
>>>> just a liar. Liar and Christian is a combination with
>>>> very bad consequences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have said that many times, but you can't actually show what is 
>>> wrong with it. 
>>
>> A simulating termination analyzer HHH correctly simulates
>> its input finite string DD until it correctly determine
>> that DD cannot possibly reach its own "ret" instruction
>> and terminate normally.
>>
>> HHH does not stupidly get stuck in non-halting behavior
>> as you suggest that it should.
>>
>>
> 
> Right, but until it *CORRECTLY* determines that the ACTUAL PROGRAM DD 

You are dishonestly trying to get away with dodging the
first step of my airtight proof:

*DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach*
*its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally*

The more that people dodge this point the more dishonest
they will seem to unbiased reviewers.

Since you know that dishonestly has eternal consequences
I am puzzled by your behavior.

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